DUKE UNIV ERST re 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


GIFT OF 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2023 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/candidreasonsfor01 edwa 


CANDID REASONS 
I 


FOR 
RENOUNCING THE PRINCIPLES 


OF 


ANTI-PADOBAPTISM. 


ALSO, 


A SHORT METHOD WITH THE BAPTISTS. 


BY 
PETER EDWARDS, 


SEVERAL YEARS PASTOR OF A BAPTIST CHURCH AT PORTSEA, HANTS. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 


. 
Yred 


aI IVAL, uv ; 


" 4 
* aE fi 


j 
in 


res 1 
oF 


bea Vi mw AN Leal 
a | wort. oki 10. ¢@ , 


T 30 i sy ia 
Bi 1. A eas) Pe ee LA. 


aie ’ oa 
«lh iV. sS 
| tie Gy. 
cr na J 
CxXEC 
CONTENTS. 
Page. 
I. Introduction,—the Question stated, - - 7 
Il. Arguments of the Baptists against Infant Bap- 
tism, - : e : P - 15 
If. Arguments in favour of Infant Baptism, - 48 
IV. A Scheme of the Controversy on Infant Bap- 
tism, - - - - - - 108 
V. A Short Method with the Baptists, - - 133 
VI. A Case submitted to the consideration of the 
Baptists, - - - - - 180 


VII. The Mode of Baptism; the Force of the 
Term, the Circumstances and Allusions con- 
sidered, - - - - - 181 


VIII. The practical Use of Pedobaptism, - - 215 


ee ee. Ae 
a 


rs fy 
a ‘'g ; wo 
J > 
. 
7 P ’ ‘ , 
ed ; 
\ “ } 
n y 
, 
? 4 
fj 
4 , 
ai 3 } 


re a 
Bit 5 908 sa raise 

P as - 

i. ae paren’ ate 
hs, pat aie a any 
ei- °°" - 
eer - . lai od 


xf Yo noikerstiento wal | 


te oo . “a 
seit sym'h edt | 
‘ ae 4 ial itA bata 
mE - ; * ‘. : “ 
dit - - orebentdei et w 
7 4 
ij ; 
n 
J 
emer J ; 
* 
, sis 
c ‘ 


TO THE 


CHURCH AND CONGREGATION 


MEETING IN WHITES’ ROW, PORTSEA, HANTS. 


‘DEARLY BELOVED, 

AFTER Officiating among you, as Pastor 
and Minister, between ten and eleven years, 
it seemed natural to address you in a publi- 
cation intended to account for that change of 
sentiment in me, which has proved the occa- 
sion of our separation. 

Two eminent writers, Mr. Booth and Dr. 
Williams, have both contributed to this. 
The latter has my acknowledgments; the 

_former my animadversions. As Mr. Booth 
had no design to discover the fallacy of the 
Baptist scheme, I thought it proper to show 
in what way his book has operated, and is 
likely still to operate, contrary to the design 


of the author. 
1 Vv 


vi 


I have presented the whole scheme to the 
reader in the same point of view in which it 
was exhibited to my own mind. In com- 
posing it, I have endeavoured to avoid every 
thing foreign and bitter; that as the truth 
has been my object, I wished to say nothing 
that should divert the attention of the reader 
from it. Wishing that you and I may grow 
in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, I 
remain, in the same esteem and love, 


Yours, in our common Lord, 
PETER EDWARDS. 


Portssa, January 12, 1795. 


INTRODUCTION. 


A FAIR STATEMENT OF THE INQUIRY.’ 


t 


THESIS I. 


Tue only thing which, in any dispute, should 
engage our attention, is this: “ What is truth?” 
And he who wishes to find it, will endeavour 
to adopt that plan which will bring him soon- 
est to what he seeks. There are two things, 
in all matters of controversy, which greatly 
facilitate our search: First, that we set aside 
all those things about which we are agreed, 
and fix our attention to that only on which 
a difference of opinion may arise ; and second- 
ly, that this difference be stated in a manner 
the most plain and simple. To either of 
these, no person who seeks the truth can 
form the least objection. 


THESIS II. 


As this inquiry lies between those who 
pass under the denomination of Pedobap- 
tists and Antipzdobaptists, it will be proper, 
in order to ascertain wherein they differ on 
the subject of baptism, to give the sentiments 
of each. Antipzedobaptists consider those per- 


8 INTRODUCTION. 


sons as meet subjects of baptism, who are sup- 
posed to possess faith in Christ, and those 
only. Pedobaptists agree with them in this, 
that believers are proper subjects of bap- 
tism ; but deny that such only are proper sub- 
jects. They think, that, together with such 
believing adults who have not yet been bap- 
tized, their infants have a right to baptism as 
well as their parents. 

I have lately conversed with many Bap- 
tists, who knew so little of the sentiments of 
their brethren, that they supposed adult bap- 
tism was entirely rejected by Padobaptists ; 
and when I endeavoured, from their confes- 
sions of faith, &c. to convince my Baptist 
friends that they held adult baptism as well 
as themselves, some believed and marveled, 
but others remained in doubt. 


THESIS III. 


From this view of the sentiments of each, 
it appears that both parties are agreed on 
the article of adult baptism, which must there- 
fore be set aside as a matter entirely out of 
dispute ; for it can answer no good purpose 
for one to prove what the other will not de- 
ny. Now, seeing they are so far of one 
mind, (I speak of the subject, not of the 
mode,) the difference between them con- 
eerns infants only; and the simple question 
which remains to be decided, is this, Are in- 
fants fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? 
On this question the whole turns. The Peedo- 
baptists affirm, and Antipeedobaptists deny. 


INTRODUCTION. ' 9 


THESIS Iv. 


The simple question being as I have now 
stated it, Are infants fit subjects of baptism, 
or are they not? it will clearly follow, that all 
those places which relate to believers’ bap- 
tism, can prove nothing on the side of Bap- 
' tists; and the reason is, they have no rela- 
tion to the question. To illustrate this, I ask 
a Baptist, Is an infant a fit subject of bap- 
tism? No,sayshe. Wherefore? Because the 
Scriptures say, Repent and be baptized—If 
thou believest, thou mayest—lI interpose, and 
say, Your answer is not in point. I asked, 
Is an infant a fit subject of baptism? You an- 
swer by telling me that a penitent adult is 
such. But as I asked no question concern- 
ing an adult, the answer is nothing at all to 
the purpose. If I should ask whether an in- 
fant were a creature of the rational kind, 
would it be a good answer, if any person 
should say, that adults were of that descrip- 
tion? No answer can be good, if it does not 
directly relate to the question proposed; for 
then, properly speaking, it is no answer to the 
question. And therefore, if I ask whether an 
infant is a proper subject of baptism, and an- 
other should bring twenty places to prove 
the propriety of baptizing adults; as all this 
would be nothing to the question, so no- 
thing would be proved thereby, either for or 
against. E 

We may from hence estimate the strength 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


of each party, as they respect one another. 
The Pedobaptist has just so much strength 
against a Baptist, as his arguments weigh on 
the affirmative, and no more; and the Baptist 
has no more strength against him, but as his 
arguments weigh on the negative. Whatever 
arguments a Baptist may bring, to evince in- 
fant baptism to be wrong, whether they be 
many or few, good or bad, it is all his 
strength; he has not a grain more on his 
side. For as it lies on neither of these to 
prove adult baptism, (it being a thing pro- 
fessed and used by both,and therefore being no 
subject of dispute) those arguments that 
prove it, can have no place here. This being 
carefully observed, we shall see which of 
these has the fairest pretensions to truth. 


THESIS V. 


Whatever may, in reality, be the force of 
argument on either side, respecting this ques- 
tion, there can be no doubt but that side is 
the true one, on which the arguments are 
found to preponderate. If the arguments 
for infant baptism are stronger than any that 
can be produced against it, then infant bap- 
tism must be right; and so the easy and sure 
way of coming to a decision is, to collect the 
arguments on both sides, try their validity, 
and compare them together. This, in the fear 
of God, I shall endeavour to do. First, I 
will set down the arguments against infant 
baptism, and examine them as I proceed ; 


INTRODUCTION, ll 


and then those which make for it; and after 
that, I will compare them together in oppo- 
site columns. By this process, which is the 
fairest I am acquainted with, we shall see 
whether Baptists or Pedobaptists have the 
truth on their side. 

The whole import of these propositions 
is—that both parties agree about adult bap- 
tism—that when a Baptist has proved adult 
baptism, he has proved nothing against a 
Pedobaptist—that the only question being 
this, Are infants fit subjects of baptism, or 
are they not? it is evident that those pass- 
ages of Scripture, which prove adult baptism, 
will not answer this question—and, that ar- 
guments for and against being compared, 
that side is the true one, on which they pre- 
ponderate. 

If any thing can make this matter plainer, 
and I wish it to be made plain, perhaps the 
introduction of a short familiar dialogue may 
do it. We will therefore suppose a conversa- 
tion between a Baptist and a Pedobaptist ; 
the Baptist speaking as follows: * 

Bap. 1 wonder very much you should not 
agree with me in sentiment, respecting the 
subjects of baptism. 

Pzxdo. There is nothing in this to wonder 
at, since we all see but in part: it is our hap- 
piness to believe to the saving of the soul. 

Bap. That which makes me wonder is 
this, that the sentiment I hold is so clearly 
revealed in Scripture. 

Pzdo, What sentiment is that you hold, 


12 INTRODUCTION. 


and which you say is so clearly revealed in 
Scripture ? 

Bap. 1 hold: what is commonly called be- 
lievers’ baptism ; or, that it is right to baptize 
a person professing faith in Christ. 

Pedo. If that be your sentiment, I grant it 
is clearly revealed; but in this we are agreed, 
it is my sentiment as well as yours. 

Bap. But this is not the whole of my senti- 
ment. I meant to have said, that it is wrong 
to baptize infants. 

Pezdo. Then you and I differ only about 
infants ? 

Bap. Vf you grant adult baptism to be 
right, it is only about infants we differ. 

Pzxdo. I do grant it. And then do you 
mean to say, that it is clearly revealed in 
Scripture, that it is wrong to baptize infants ? 

Bap. 1 do mean to say that. 

Pzdo. How do you prove it? 

Bap. I prove it by Acts viii. 37. “If thou 
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”’ 

Pezxdo. You have indeed proved believers’ 
baptism to be right; but I asked you, how 
you proved infant baptism to be wrong? 

Bap. Must not infant baptism be wrong, 
if believers’ baptism be right? 

Pzdo. No more than believers’ baptism 
must be wrong, if infant baptism be right. 
Would you think I had proved that infants 
would be lost, by proving that believing 
adults would be saved? 

Bap. Certainly I should not. 

. Pedo, Why? 


NTRODUCTION. zS 


Bap. Because the! question would be only 
about infants; and we cannot infer the loss 
of an infant from the salvation of a believing 
adult. 

Pzdo. Very true. Then that which proves 
infant baptism wrong, must not be the same 
that proves adult baptism to be right. 

Bap. 1 grant it, and think there is suffi- 
cient proof against it beside. 

Pzxdo. This is the very point. You pro- 
duce your proof against it, and I will pro- 
duce mine for it. If your proof be found 
stronger against, than mine for, you have the 
truth on your side; if not, the truth is on 
mine. 

Bap. Nothing can be more fair; and Iam 
willing to put it to the test. 


a 


- 
+o 
ee 
{4 
| whe . 
‘he 
‘2 : 
ot OMI «Hay 
Be a 4 
‘ He: Beh 


son 


pa é val 


~jitan %. avait. ak 


Any woe me: : 
rt slay L made 
busy 190M 


ie tw tire Aine. . 


‘ vs 5 : ‘A 
{ “wee Ric 5 
i —_ es a 
: Par Aes 


INFANT BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER I. 
ARGUMENTS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. 


ARGUMENT I. 


A person who has a right to a positive institution must be ex- 
pressly mentioned as having that right; but infants are not 
so mentioned, therefore they have not that right. | 

As the whole force of this argument turns 

upon the words express and explicit, which 

Baptist writers commonly use, the reader, 

in order to form a just opinion upon the 

subject, should clearly understand their, im- 

port. And since I shall often have occasion 

to use them, the reader will meet with an 
explanation of the term explicit in another 
place. At present it will be sufficient to say, 
that both these terms stand opposed to infer- 
ence, analogy, and implication. And when 
the Baptists say there is no express command 
for infant baptism, they mean there is no 
command “in so many words,” as “thou 
shalt baptize infants,” or something equiva- 
15 


16 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


lent. This being premised, I say of the argu- 
ment, it is assuming, contracted, false. It is 
very assuming, because it seems to dictate 
to the ever-blessed God in what manner he 
ought to speak to his creatures. Since it is 
no where contained in his word, and he 
knows best how to communicate his mind to 
men, it little becomes such creatures as we 
are, to lay down rules by which he shall pro- 
ceed. To such who thus assume, it may pro- 
perly be said, “ Who hath known the mind of 
the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor ? 
For of him, and through him, and to him, 
are all things: to whom be glory for ever. 
Amen.”’ 

It is very contracted, because it supposes 
we cannot understand what God says, but 
when he speaks to us in one particular way. 
Certain it is that the most important things 
are set forth in Scripture, in many different 
ways; and we may come at the truth by an 
indirect, as certainly as by a direct expres- 
sion: e. g. When the apostle says he was 
“ caught up into the third heaven,” I certainly 
know, there is a first and a second, though I 
no where had read expressly of any such 
thing. But what is most material, I affirm 
that 

It is very false, because (to wave other 
instances, and fix on one only) a subject is 
admitted to a positive institution, and that ad- . 
mission is according to truth, and so held 
and practised by all, who use Christian rites; 
when yet there is no express law or example 


INFANT BAPTISM. 17 


to support it, in all the word of God. It is 
the case of women, to which I allude, and 
their admission to the Lord’s table. 

I acknowledge it is right to admit them, 
and so do all, who use the Lord’s Supper; 
but as to express law or example, there is no 
such thing in Scripture. If it be said, that 
women are fit subjects of baptism—that they 
are capable of religious advantages—that 
they have a right to church-membership, 
and therefore a right to the Lord’s Supper, I 
grant it—And then the argument is false; for 
if women are admitted because they are fit 
subjects of baptism, &c. they are admitted by 
something, which is not express law or ex- 
ample. But the argument I am opposing 
says, “A person who has a right to positive 
institutions, must be expressly mentioned as 
having that right.””, Now, if women are not 
so mentioned with respect to the Supper, the 
practice of admitting them is wrong, or this 
argument is false. This argument indeed is 
false; the practice is by no means wrong. 
And to show the fallacy of the Baptist sys- 
tem at large, I will undertake, in the sequel, 
to prove that, upon the principles and reason- 
ings of the Baptists,a woman, however quali- 
fied, can have no right whatever to the Lord’s 
table. 

« There is no express command or exam- 
ple for infant baptism !”? This being a fa- 
vourite argument with Baptists, and the case 
of women, in this respect, being the same as 


that of infants, they will not suffer an in- 
2 * 


18 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


stance, so fatal to their system, to pass by 
without making an effort to overturn it. The 
know very well, I mean the thinking part, es- 
pecially those who write, that they cannot 
maintain this argument against infants, with- 
out producing an explicit warrant for female 
communion. They therefore affirm, that the 
Scriptures afford such a warrant, and that it 
is found in 1 Cor. xi. 28. “Let a man [.2n- 
thropos] examine himself, and so let him eat 
of that bread, &c.’’ It is certainly here, or 
nowhere. I have known many who took this 
for an express word for women. I did so 
myself for some years, till Mr. Booth’s at- 
tempt to prove it convinced me of the con- 
trary. 

An express word, in the present case, must 
be one that specifies the sex; as Acts viii. 
12, “they were baptized, both men and 
women.” [.4ndres kai gunaikes.| But I ask, 
is Anthropos an express word for a woman ? 
Mr. Booth affirms it is. Take it in his own 
words, vol. ii. p. 73. “In regard to the sup- 
posed want of an explicit warrant for admit- 
ting women to the holy table, we reply by 
demanding, does not Paul, when he says, 
Let aman examine himself, and so let him 
eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper ? 
Does not the term Anthropos, there used, 
often stand as a name of our species, with- 
out regard to sex ? Have we not the authority 
of lexicographers, and, which is incompara- 
bly more, the sanction of common sense, for 
understanding it thus in that passage ? When 


INFANT BAPTISM. 19 


the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the 
word for a man is not -2nthropos, but Aneer.”’ 
This is all about the word, except a quotation, 
which is not material. 

The reader is desired to observe, that, as 
Mr. B. has undertaken to produce an explicit 
warrant for female communion, he can derive 
no help from analogy, or inference, or any 
thing of that kind. The words he brings for 
proof must contain their own unequivocal 
evidence, independent of every other con- 
‘sideration. If this be not the case, his expli- 
cit warrant is a mere fiction. 

Now for the explicit warrant. Mr. B. says, 
« Does not Paul, when he says, Let a man 
examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin 
a reception of the sacred Supper? True. 
“Does not the term nthropos, there used, 
often stand as the name of our species, with- 
out regard to sex?”? True again. Observe 
this, orTeN stTanD! Notalways. Does Mr. 
B. take this for an explicit warrant ? What a 
demonstration! And how full to the point! 
But Mr. B. says it stands so in the text. How 
does he know it? Why he has two evidences 
of this; a lexicographer, 7. e. a dictionary 
maker, and common sense. Common sense,. 
he says, is the best of the two. However, I 
will take them together, and proceed to ask, 
How do they know that the term 2nthropos 
stands in this text as a name of our species? 
They must know it either from the word 
itself, or from some other ground. That they 
cannot know it from the word itself, is evi- 


20 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


dent by this single consideration, that a boy, 
who reads his Greek Testament, may meet 
with the word a hundred times, where the 
female sex can by no means be intended ; 
nay, he may find it used several times, though 
Mr. B. could not, to distinguish the male from 
the female. Where then is its explicitness? _ 
He says it is often used as a name of our 
species. And is not our English word “ man” 
used in the same way? Would Mr. B. take 
that to be an explicit word for a woman? If 
the word “man” be often used for a name of 
our species, as well as nthropos, then one is 
just as explicit a word for a woman as the 
other ; and so Mr. B. might as well have fixed 
on the English word for an explicit one, as 
the Greek But had he done this, it would 
have ruined his book; and he has only es- 
caped under the cover of a Greek term. If 
then, it cannot be known from the word it- 
self, that females are intended, it matters not, 
in what other way we may know it, the 
Baptist argument is entirely ruined and lost. 
But Mr. B. in the next sentence, will urge 
the matter further, and boldly affirm, that, 
«When the sexes are distinguished and op- 
posed, the word for aman is not Anthropos, 
but Aneer.”? I know not what Mr. B. expect- 
ed to prove by this assertion; forif it were 
true, I see not how it is to help him in re- 
spect to his explicit warrant ; but asit is false, 
it cannot help him in any form, except it be 
to make him more cautious in future. This 
assertion, if it proceeded from ignorance, is, 
/ 


INFANT BAPTISM. gZ1 


in a reader and writer like Mr. B. far too 
bad; if it did not proceed from ignorance, 
it is far worse. I am willing to suppose the 
former, and acquit him of the latter. 

Against this assertion of Mr. B. I will 
now place nineteen instances; in every one 
of which there is a distinction and opposition 
of the sexes, and the word for a man is not 
Aneer, but Anthropos. Some of these are in 
the Septuagint, and others in the New Tes- 
tament. Gen. ii. 24,“ Therefore shall a man 
[-4nthropos] leave his father and his mother, 
and cleave unto his wife.”? Gen. xxvi. 11. 
« And Abimelech charged all his people, say- 
ing, He that toucheth this man [2nthropou] 
or his wife, shall surely be put to death.” 
Gen. xxxiv. 14. “And Simeon and Levi, the 
brethren of Dinah, said, We cannot do this 
thing, to give our sisTER to one [.4nthropo| 
that is uncircumcised.”? Deut. xx. 7, “« And 
what man [.2nthropos] is there that hath be- 
trothed a wife, and hath not taken her?’ 
Deut. xvii. 5. “Then shalt thou bring forth 
that man, [2nthropon] or that woman.” Jer. 
xliv. 7. “ Wherefore commit ye this great evil 
against your souls, to cut off from you man 
[nthropon] and woman, child and suck- 
ling ?”’ For other instances in the Septuagint 
see Gen. ii. 18; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxv. 
8; Deut. xxi. 15—xxii. 30; Esther iv. 11. 

Matt. xix. 10. “ His disciples say unto him, 
If the case of the man [-4nthropow] be so 
with his wirx, it is not good to marry.” 
Matt. xix. 3. “The Pharisees also came unto 


22 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is 
it lawful for a man [&nthropo] to put away 
his wire for every cause ?”? Mark x. 7. “ For 
this cause shall a man [2&nthropos] leave his 
father and mother, and cleave to his wife.’’ 
1 Cor. vii. 1. “ Now concerning the things 
whereof ye wrote unto me, it is good fora 
man [Anthropo] not to touch a woman.” 
Matt. xix. 5. “For_this cause shall a man 
[-4nthropos] leave his father and mother, 
and cleave to his wife.”’ Rev. ix. 7, 8. “ And. 
their faces were as the faces of men [.4nthro- 
‘pon ;| and they had hair as the hair of 2wo- 
men.’ Eph. v. 31. “For this cause shall a 
man [4nthropos] leave his father and mo- 
ther, and shall be joined unto his ewizfe.”” 
After I had collected some of these in- 
stances, which I have here set down, I men- 
tioned the sentence of Mr. B. and likewise 
the instances which lay against it, to a Bap- 
tist minister, who happened to be at my 
house. He thereupon took the Greek Tes- 
tament, and read those places to which I di- 
rected him. When he had done this, he was 
greatly surprised at the incautiousness of Mr. 
B. and at the same time, made the best apo- 
logy for him, which the case would adimit 
of. I then observed, that, had Mr. B. affirm- 
ed that Aneer was more commonly used to 
distinguish the sexes, than Anthropos, he 
would have been right. Yes, said he, but 
that would not have answered Mr. B.’s pur- 
pose. Which indeed was very true; for he, 
having all through his book insisted that in- 


INFANT BAPTISM. 23 


fants should not be baptized, because there 
was no express warrant for it, was compelled, 
by his own reasoning, to bring forward an 
explict warrant for female communion. And 
when he comes to prove that there is such a 
warrant in Scripture for female right to the 
Lord’s Supper, he first of all falls upon pre- 
sumptive proof, “ Does not the term Anthro- 
pos often stand as a name of our species ?”” 
As if he had said, If this word often stands as 
a name of our species, I presume it is possible 
it may so standin this text. In the next place 
he falls upon inferential proof, and sets a lexi- 
cographer and common sense to infer (for they 
could do no other) that so it must mean in 
the text. And lastly, to make it still worse, 
he makes an evident mistake, when he says, 
that, when the sexes are distinguished and 
opposed, the word for a man is not An- 
thropos, but ~Zneer. This is all Mr. B. is 
pleased to give the reader, instead of an 
explicit warrant—presumption, inference, and 
mistake; and if either he, or any of his 
readers, can satisfy themselves with such an 
explicit warrant as this, they can neither of 
them be esteemed very nice in this article. 
But, to set Mr. B. and his explicit warrant 
ina clear point of light, the reader-has only 
to contemplate those two facts which have 
just passed under his eye; namely, that 4n- 
thropos is often used as a name of our species, 
as Mr. B. affirms; and likewise that it is often 
used to distinguish one sex from the other. 
Now with these two facts in view [viz. An< 


24 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


thropos is often used as a name of our species, 
and often it is not so used,] if a question be 
started concerning its meaning in any text, 
let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28, the reader will see at 
once that it is no explicit word, because he 
will stand in need of a third thing, to deter- 
mine in what sense it is used there; whereas, 
if the word were explicit, nothing else would 
be necessary to fix the sense. Now as the 
facts weigh on both sides, orreNn against 
OFTEN, and as the reader wants a third thing 
to settle the import of the word in this text, 
I ask, what is this third thing? Lexicogra- 
phers and common sense, says Mr. B. Nay, 
no ambiguity, sir, we are now talking of ex- 
plicitness Why did you not say, analogy 
and inference? Shocking! What! give up 
the cause at once! But what, I say again, is 
this third thing? Is Mr. B. afraid of telling? 
I wish, however, he would write again, and 
say in plain terms what itis. Is it what you 
speak of in the latter part of the defence, viz. 
“ that women have the same pre-requisites as 
men, and that male and female are one in 
Christ??? Very good.—Proceed.—Therefore 
—I say, go on, do not be afraid, this will 
bring you safe to your conclusion; for it is 
only analogy and inference. Inference and 
analogy ! and upon a positive institution too ! 
T cannot bear the terms; I would much rather 
eall them lexicographers and common sense ; 
for were I to call them inference and analogy, 
it would ruin my whole book. It is very 
true, Mr. B.; but at the same time, is it not 


INFANT BAPTISM. 25 


better your book should be ruined by plain 
dealing, than that your reputation should 
seem to be stained by acting an artful part? 
But after all, here is a third thing wanting 
to settle the meaning of this ambiguous 
word. And what does it signify by what 
name we call this third thing? For whe- 
ther we name it analogy, or inference, or 
lexicographer, or common sense (which 
two last are Mr. B.’s names, as he could 
not bear the others on a positive institution,) 
it comes still to the same thing; it shows 
that this is no explicit word for females, and 
consequently, as there is no other, this argu- 
ment is ruined. 

What I have now animadverted upon is 
all Mr. B. says, that can even pretend to 
evince an explicit warrant. But since the 
whole of it, upon his principles, is as curious 
a defence of female right to the Lord’s table 
as ever was presented to the public, I will 
pay him the compliment of surveying it, and 
taking it to pieces,in due time and place. 
In the mean time I do not blame Mr. B. for 
not being able to produce an explicit warrant 
for women; it is what no man is able to do; 
but I do blame him for using such reasoning 
as he has done, and then passing it upon the 
public under the colour of explicit proof. 

It is a common opinion that Baptists and 
Pedobaptists do reason differently on posi- 
tive institutions ; that the former invariably in- 
sist upon express proof, while the latter ad- 
mit the force of inferential reasoning. It is 

3 


26 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


true they profess to reason differently, and 
they actually do sometimes; but then it is 
only according to the mood they may be in, 
and the matter they may have in hand. Let 
the matter of debate be a little varied, and 
they reason on positive institutions precisely in 
the same way. 

I have taken the liberty in time past, to 
ask Pedobaptists why they baptized their 
infants? One has told me, that infants were 
circumcised, and therefore should now be 
baptized; inferring their baptism from cir- 
cumcision, Another has told me, that our 
Lord took infants into his arms, and blessed 
them, and said they were of the kingdom of 
heaven; so inferring their baptism from the 
language and conduct of Christ. At hear- 
ing this, the Baptists smile, and think it very 
foolish reasoning. 

I have also taken the liberty to ask Bap- 
tists, why they admitted women to the Lord’s 
table? One informed me that women were 
partakers of the grace of God; inferring their 
right to communicate from their grace. An- 
other told me, that women had been baptiz-— 
ed; and inferred their right to the supper 
from their baptism. <A third gave me to un- 
derstand, that women did eat of the paschal 
lamb, and from thence inferred their right to 
the Lord’s table. A fourth told me that 
women were creatures of God as well as 
men; and so inferred their right from their 
creation. These Baptists did all infer, and, 
as Mr. B. says of Paedobaptists, not feeling 


INFANT BAPTISM. 27 


the ground on which they stood, they agreed 
in one conclusion, but did not agree in the 
premises from which it should be drawn. 

It may perhaps be said, that these persons 
did not possess logical exactness; that they 
were not aware of the impropriety of de- 
manding plain, express, unequivocal proof; 
and then, as it suited their convenience, fly- 
ing directly to inference, implication, and 
analogy; and that too on a positive ordi- 
nance. I grant they were plain persons, and 
did not see the inconsistency of this conduct. 
Well, we will betake ourselves to men of 
skill, to those who are acquainted with logi- 
cal precision; and then let us see how they 
act in this business. What think you of Mr. 
Booth, as a man of erudition and logical at- 
tainment? Does Mr. B., say you, employ in- 
ferential reasoning on a positive institution ? 
Nothing in the world more certain. What! 
Mr. B.; he who has written so many hun- 
dred pages with a view to expose it? Yes, 
that identical Mr. B. to the reproach of all 
consistency, does, in that very work, when 
sad necessity compels, even deal in this same 
inferential reasoning. I will not evidence 
this now, since I have promised to notice his 
whole defence of women in a more proper 
place. 

All Iam concerned to do in this place, is 
to show that this argument of the Baptists is 
false. The argument is this: “ A person who 
has a right to a positive institution, must be 
expressly mentioned as having that right; 


28 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


but infants are not so mentioned, &c.”? That 
the argument is false, appears from these 
facts : : 

I. The scriptures do not countenance it. 
For as it is not proved by any part of the 
word of God, being neither set down in the 
words, nor yet in the sense of holy writ, and 
therefore a fiction, invented by men to sup- 
port a particular opinion; so it stands di- 
rectly against God’s holy word. And this is 
evident from hence; that though women are 
expressly said to have been baptized, they 
are never said to have received the Lord’s 
supper. The Scriptures, therefore, in plain 
opposition to this false argument, leave us 
to conclude their right, to the Lord’s sup- 
per from their baptism, together with other 
grounds. Thus it has no support from Scrip- 
ture. 

II. The Baptists themselves do not coun- 
tenance it; for though they have written 
whole books on the strength of it, they are 
compelled to desert it, and do desert it, the 
moment the subject is varied. For after they 
have vapoured ever so long, and ever so loud, 
about ‘no express law—no explicit warrant 
for infant baptism—infant baptism is no where 
mentioned in Scripture ;” let any one put it 
upon them to prove the right of women to 
the supper, and I will answer for it he will 
hear no more of express Jaw on that head. 
He will find that all this hollow sound which 
signifies nothing, will die away, and each 
will shift for himself the best way he can, 


INFANT BAPTISM. 29 


and fly for aid to analogy and inference. 
Women, say they, may be gracious— Wo- 
men were baptized—Women did eat of the 
paschal lamb—Women are creatures of God, 
as well as men and therefore — Therefore 
what? Why therefore they should receive 
the Lord’s supper. What now has become 
of their express law? It is deserted, com- 
pletely deserted ; nor will they adopt it again 
till infant baptism is resumed. The Baptists, 
therefore, do not countenance it. 

III. Mr. Booth himself does not counten- 
ance it; I mean, not always countenance it. 
For though he has demanded explicit proof 
for infant baptism, and has contended that if 
such proof cannot be adduced, the baptism 
of infants must be wrong, yet, when he 
comes to produce an explicit warrant for fe- 
male communion, he is content, nay, stop, 
I cannot say he is content, but he is compel- 
led to fly to presuming, to implication, to 
analogy, to inference, to make out an ex- 
plicit warrant! All this we engage to prove, 
and to make a proper use of it in the sequel. 
And I cannot help observing, that if female 
communion cannot be supported on the prin- 
ciple of this argument, how idle a thing it is 
to forge a rule to operate against infants 
only. 

Finally, as this argument militates against 
female communion, as well as infant bap- 
tism, they must either both be wrong, or the 
argument itself must be false. That the ar- 
gument is false, is sufficiently evident, as it 

3% 


30 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


not only has no support from Scripture, but 
lies directly against it; and from what I have 
observed, in many recent conversations, I do 
not suppose there is a single Baptist in the 
kingdom that will even dare to stick to it. 
For after they had urged this argument upon 
me, I have turned the question from infant 
baptism to female communion, and I do not 
recollect one, either minister or private per- 
son, but has, in little more than a quarter of 
an hour, entirely given up the argument. 
And if Mr. B. should think proper to take 
up his pen once more on this subject, I have 
not a doubt but I should be able to compel 
even him, as well as many of his brethren, 
to relinquish it as a false argument; and I 
hope he will take up his pen once again, and 
vindicate his defence of female communion. 

I have been the longer on this argument, 
because as it is very frequently urged, so it 
contains precisely one half of the Baptist 
strength. This argument, therefore, being 
destroyed, just half their strength is gone, 
And if any one should be inclined to cry out, 
“There is no explicit example—there is no 
express law for infant baptism,” &c. any 
person has it in his power to quiet him al- 
most in an instant, should he only ask him to 
produce his explicit law, for female com- 
munion. Thus much for this bad argument; 
and I pass to the other. 


INFANT BAPTISM. $l 


ARGUMENT II. 


The Scriptures require faith and repentance as requisite to 
baptism; but as infants cannot have these, they are not 
proper subjects of baptism. Infants, say the Baptists, can- 
not believe, cannot repent; and none should be baptized 
without faith, &c. 


TuxE most expeditious way of destroying this 
argument, would be this. They say the Scrip- 
tures require faith and repentance in order to 
baptism. lLask,Of whom? The answer must 
be, Of adults; for the Scriptures never re- 
quire them of infants, in order to any thing. 
Then frame the argument thus :—The Scrip- 
tures require faith and repentance of ADULTs, 
in order to baptism. Now you see infants are 
gone, they have nothing to do with the argu- 
ment; or if they must be brought in, the ar- 
gument will run thus:—The Scriptures re- 
quire faith and repentance of ADULTs, in or- 
der to baptism; but as 1nFANTs cannot have 
these, they are unfit subjects of that ordi- 
nance. Now it is a glaring sophism; with 
adults in one proposition, and infants in the 
other. Were I only to leave the argument 
thus, and say no more upon it, it would not 
be possible to save it from destruction; but 
since it is the only remaining half of the Bap- 
tist strength, I will examine it more at large. 
In order to judge of the real worth of an 
argument, I lay down this rule: “ Every ar- 
gument that will prove against an evident 
truth ; or, which is the same thing, every ar- 
gument which will support a falsehood, is 


32 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


clearly a bad argument.” This rule is self- 
evident; for that must needs be false, which 
tends to prove a falsehood. 

1 will proceed by this rule, and attempt to 
show, I. That this argument is entirely fal- 
Jacious. II. Point out wherein its fallacy 
consists. 

I. Of the fallacy of this argument. The 
principle of it is, that infants are excluded 
from baptism, because something is said of 
baptism which will not agree to infants. To 
see therefore the tendency of this argument, 
whether it will prove on the side of truth 
or error, I will try its operation on these four 
subjects. 

1. On the circumcision of infants. That 
infants were circumcised, is a fact. That 
they were circumcised by the express com- 
mand of God, is a proof of right. They were 
actually circumcised, and it was right they 
should he so. Therefore,that they were proper 
subjects of that institution, isan evident truth. 
Now on this truth I mean to try the argu- 
ment, to see if it will prove for or against it. 

Circumcision, as it was a solemn entering 
into the church of God, did fix an obligation: 
on the circumcised, to conform to the laws 
and ordinances of that church. Hence that 
speech, Acts xv. 24. “Ye must be cireum- 
cised, and keep the law ;”’? which would have 
been just, if circumcision had not been abol- 
ished. The apostle says, Gal. v. 3. “Every 
man who is circumcised, is a debtor to do 
the whole law.” His meaning is, if cireum- 


INFANT BAPTISM. 33 


cision be in force, so must its obligation too. 
And Rom. ii. 25, he says, “Circumcision pro- 
fiteth, if thou keep the law; but, if thou be a 
breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made 
uncircumcision.’’ ‘The sum of this is, he that 
was circumcised became a debtor; if he kept 
the law to which he was bound, his cireum- 
cision would profit; but if he violated it, his 
circumcision became a nullity. 

Now I ask, Did it agree to an infant to 
become a debtor? Did it agree to an infant 
to break or keep the law? Mr. Booth shall 
answer both. To the first he says, vol. ii. 
page 151, “Infants are not capable of con- 
tracting either with God or man ;—that, to 
suppose any such thing, insults the under- 
standing and feelings of mankind. For, as 
Bishop Sanderson observes, In personal ob- 
ligations no man is bound without his own 
consent,’’? To the others he answers, “ The 
minds of mere infants are not capable of 
comparing their own conduct with the rule 
of duty: they have, properly speaking, no 
conscience at all.”? Infants therefore could 
not become debtors; they could not keep the 
law. Very well. Then it is clear there was 
something said of circumcision, which did. 
no more agree to infants, than if.it had been 
said, Repent, and be baptized. 

In this respect, baptism and circumcision 
are upon a level; for there is something said 
concerning both, which will by no means 
agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand, 
can neither believe nor repent; and these are 


34 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


connected with baptism; and, on the other 
hand, infants cannot become debtors, they 
cannot keep the law; and these are connect- 
ed with circumcision. And then if we say, 
as the Baptists do, that infants, since they 
cannot believe or repent, must not be bap- 
tized, because faith and repentance are con- 
nected with baptism; we must say likewise, 
infants cannot become debtors, they cannot 
keep the law; and because these are connect- 
ed with circumcision, they must not be cir- 
cumcised. And then it follows, that this argu- ~ 
ment, by proving against a known truth, 
appears a fallacious argument. 

But it may be said, circumcision of in- 
fants was commanded of God, and was there- 
fore certainly right. To this I answer, that 
that is the very principle on which I pro- 
ceed, and it is that very thing which proves 
fatal to this argument; for the circumcision 
of infants being an evident truth, and the ar- 
gument before us proving against it, it isa 
plain demonstration of its absurdity and fal- 
lacy. Nowif this argument be such, that had 
it been used by a Jew in the land of Canaan, 
it would have proved against an ordinance 
of God, I would fain know, if its nature can 
in any measure be changed, merely on its 
being used by a Baptist, and in a different 
climate? I proceed to try it, 

2. On the baptism of Jesus Christ. The 
baptism of Christ isa known fact; and that he 
was a fit subject, is an acknowledged truth. 
It is likewise certain, that, as he was no sin- 


INFANT BAPTISM. 35 


ner, he could have no repentance; and since 
he needed no salvation from sin, he could 
not have the faith of God’s elect; that is, he 
could not have that faith which the Scrip- 
tures require for baptism. 

Now the tendency of this argument being 
to prove, that those who cannot have faith 
and repentance are unfit subjects of bap- 
tism; and Scripture informing us that our 
Lord Jesus was baptised, who could have 
neither, the dilemma therefore will be this; 
either the baptism of Christ was wrong, or 
else this argument is false. It is impossible 
to suppose the first, that the baptism of Christ 
was wrong ; we must therefore affirm the last, 
that this argument is false : because that argu- 
ment must be false which proves against an 
evident truth. 

Again, when it is said in the argument, 
that the Scriptures require faith and repent- 
ance, in order to baptism; I ask, Do they re- 
quire them of all, or of some only? If it be 
said, they are required of all; then, as before 
noted, it proves against the baptism of Jesus 
Christ. If it be said, they require them of 
some only; then the argument has no force: 
for, in that case, it would run thus—Faith 
and repentance are required only of some, 
in order to baptism; and now the conse- 
quence will be, that some may be baptized 
without them. And nothing would remain 
then, but that it be determined, who should 
be baptized without faith, and who with. 

View it which way we will, the argument 


36 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


is miserably bad. The Baptists, however, 
in this case, fly to its relief by saying, “ that 
Jesus Christ, on account of the dignity of his 
person, was exempted from this rule.” How 
this will mend the matter, I see not; for now 
it is acknowledged to be a rule which will 
admit of exception. And then I have only 
to ask, How many exceptions does it admit, 
and what are they? Neither would it be 
better to say, that Christ was baptized, to set 
us an example. For then we should have 
an example of one, who, being incapable of 
faith and repentance, was baptized without 
them. And in this view, his example will 
weigh in favour of infant baptism. I will 
try it again, ‘a 

3. On the salvation of infants. That in- 
fants may be the subjects of salvation is uni- 
versally admitted ; that those, who die in in- 
fancy, are actually glorified, is also granted ; 
and yet there is something said concerning 
salvation, which will by no means agree to 
infants—“ He that believeth shall be saved; 
he that believeth not shall be damned,’ &c. 

What shall we say in this case? Why, 
the same as before. If infants must not be 
baptized, because something is said of bap- 
tism, which does not agree to infants; then, 
by the same rule, infants must not be saved, 
because something is said of salvation, which 
does not agree to infants. And then, the same 
consequence again follows, that this argu- 
ment, by proving against an acknowledged 
truth, proves itself to be fallacious. 


INFANT BAPTISM. $7 


And now, since it falls in with my, present 
design, and may serve to relieve and inform 
the reader, I will present him with two speci- 
mens of reasoning on the same text; one of 
which concludes against infant baptism, and 
the other for it. The reader may adopt that 
which pleases him best. 

The first specimen shall be that of Mr. B. 
vol. ii. page 309, where he adopts the remark 
of Mr. Chambers: “ What they [the German 
Baptists] chiefly supported their great doc- 
trine on, was those words of our Saviour: 
‘ He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be 
saved.’ As none but adults are capable of 
believing, they argued, ‘that no others are 

‘capable of baptism.’ ”’ If these had gone one 
step further, their argument would have been 
lost: e. g. As none but adults are capable of 
believing, none but adults are capable of be- 
ing saved. This with the Baptists is a fa- 
vourite text; and they argue upon it from 
the order of the words. If, say they, faith 
goes before baptism; then infants must not 
be baptized, because they have no faith. 

The other is that of Dr. Walker, out of his 
Modest Plea, page 179. His words are these: 
“Tf none must be baptized but he that be- 
lieves, because believing is set first; then none 
must be saved but he that is baptized, be- 
cause baptizing is set first. And then, what 
better argument can be made for infant bap- 
tism? They must be baptized if we will have 
them saved; because they cannot be saved 
without being baptized; for baptizing goes 

4 


38 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


before saving. And yet from the same text, 
and by the same way of arguing, it may be 
-proved, that no infants are saved, but those 
that believe; because believing is set before 
saving. Aud not only so, but whereas it is 
not said, he that believeth not shall not be 
baptized ; it is said, he that believeth not shall 
be damned.’ 

The difference between the reasoning of 
these two, lies in this: The Baptists reason on 
a part of the text only, and the Doctor reasoned 
on the whole. And to show how miserably 
fallacious the reasoning of the Baptists is, I 
will lay down a plan of their logic on this text, 
which will produce more conclusions than 
there are principal words in that part of the 
verse. The place is Mark xvi. 16. “ He that 
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.’? 
Now as the Baptists reason from the order 
of the words, I will mark them with figures, 
*believeth—*baptized—‘saved. 

The logic is as follows: Take the first and 
second, believeth—baptized—and say with 
the Baptists— 

1. None are to be baptized but such as 
believe, because believing must be before 
baptizing.—“ 'Believeth’’—* *Baptized.”’ 

This will conclude against infant bap- 
tism. 

Next take the first and third—believeth— 
saved—and say in the same way: 

2. None are to be saved, but such as be- 
lieve, because believing must be before sav- 
ing.—“ 'Believeth’’—“ *saved.” 


. 


INFANT BAPTISM. 39 


This concludes against infant salvation. 

Now take the second and third—baptized 
—saved—and argue in the same manner : 

3. None are to be saved; but such as are 
baptized, because baptizing must go before 
saving.—* *Baptized’’—* *saved.”’ 

This will conclude on the side of infant 
baptism, they must be baptized, or they can- 
not be saved. As Dr. Walker reasons. 

Lastly, take all three—believeth—baptized 
—saved—and say: 

4. None are to be saved but such as be- 
lieve and are baptized, because believing and 
baptizing must be before saving—<'Believ- 
eth” —« *baptized’’—*« *saved.”” 

This concludes against the salvation of be- 
lievers in Jesus Christ, if they have not been 
baptized. And so upon the principle of the 
Baptists, it concludes against the salvation of 
all Peedobaptists. 

All these conclusions, arising from the 
same way of reasoning, may serve as a 
specimen to show the fallacious mode of 
arguing against infant baptism, adopted by 
the Baptists, 

Let it be tried once more, 

5. On the temporal subsistence of infants. 
As the reader may perceive the drift of the 
reasoning, on these instances, I will use but 
few words on the present one. Now that in- 
fants should be supported, not only Scripture, 
but nature itself teaches. And yet, if we 
form the Baptist argument, on a few places 
of Scripture, it may be proved, in opposition 


40 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


to Nature and Scripture both, that infants 
should actually be left to starve. 

We have nothing to do but mention the 

texts, and apply their reasoning to them. 
Isaiah i. 19. “If ye be willing and obedient, 
ye shall eat the good of the land.” 2 Thess. 
iii. 10. “If any would not work, neither 
should he eat.” Take the first, and say with 
the Baptist in another case: Willingness and 
obedience are required of those who are to 
eat the good of the land; but since infants 
ean neither will nor obey, they must not eat 
the good of the land. In the same way let 
the other be taken: He that will not work, 
neither shall he eat; infants cannot will to 
work, then infants must not eat. 
_ This argument, in whatever way it is view- 
ed, proves against the truth. Is it a truth, 
that infants should subsist? This argument 
proves against it. Is it a truth, that infants 
may be saved? This argument will prove 
the contrary. Was Christ rightly baptized ? 
According to this argument it could not be. 
Were infants proper subjects of cireumcision ? 
This argument will prove they were not. 
Then, if it invariably support a falsehood, we 
are compelled to say it is a false argument. 

IJ. I will point out wherein this fallacy 
consists. As this argument, notwithstanding 
it is false, is used by the Baptists in general, 
both learned and unlearned, I will attempt 
to lay open its fallacy ; and thereby put those 
persons upon their guard, who may be in 
danger of being seduced by it. The judicious 


INFANT BAPTISM. 41 


reader may have observed, that I slightly 
hinted at the outset, wherein its fault consist- 
ed; but to make it yet more evident what 
that fault is, of which it is guilty, | will take 
the liberty of saying a few words more. 

That particular rule, against which this 
argument offends, is this: “ Non debet plus 
esse in conclusione quam erat in premissis. 
Ratio manifesta est, quia conclusio educen- 
da est ex premissis. That is, “ There should 
not be more in the conclusion than was in 
the premises. The reason is plain, because 
the conclusion is to be drawn from the pre- 
mises.”” We will try to make this plain, by 
examples both of true and false reasoning. 

1. Inthe Baptist way of reasoning. When 
the Scriptures say, “ Repent and be bapti- 
zed ;”’ and, “If thou believest thou mayest,” 
&c. they address only sinful adults; and then, 
an argument formed upon them should reach 
no further than adults of the same description. 
But the Baptists form their fallacious argu- 
ment on these passages, by bringing infants 
into the conclusion, who, as they are not ad- 
dressed, are not at all concerned in the pre- 
mises. This will appear plain by three in- 
stances on the Baptist plan. 

The Baptistargumentrunsthus: The Scrip- 
tures require faith and repentance in order 
to baptism; but infants have not faith and 
Tepentance: therefore they are not to be bap- 
tized. Now as the Scriptures require faith 
and repentance only of adults, we must place 
that word in the argument, and then it will 

4 = 


42 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


stand in this form: The Scriptures require 
faith and repentance of apuLTs in order to 
baptism; but inranrs cannot have these: 
therefore infants are not fit subjects of bap- 
tism. In the same way, we may form the 
two following instances, viz. The Scriptures 
require faith and repentance of adults in order 
to salvation ; but infants cannot have these: 
therefore infants cannot be saved. Again, 
He [an adult] who will not work, neither 
should he eat; but an infant cannot will to 
work, therefore an infant should noteat. The 
reader may perceive, that by placing the 
word adults in one proposition, and infants 
in the other, (which makes it a sophism,) 
there are three things proved in the same 
way, viz. That infants cannot be saved—that 
infants should not eat—that infants should 
not be baptized. And so, for the same reason, 
that an infant cannot be saved, that an infant 
should not eat, it will follow, that an infant 
should not be baptized. For all these are 
equally true, and supported by the same 
reasoning. And it is in the same way, that 
this argument proves against the baptism of 
Christ, and the circumcision of infants. We 
will now view these three instances, 

2. In the Pedobaptist way of reasoning. 
We will place the same word in each propo- 
sition, thus: The Scriptures require faith and 
repentance of adults in order to baptism; but 
some adults have no faith, no repentance ; 
therefore some adults are not to be baptized. 
Again, The Scriptures require faith and re- 


INFANT BAPTISM. 43 


pentance of adults in order to salvation; but 
some adults do not believe nor repent; there- 
fore some adults will not be saved. Once 
more—He [an adult] who will not work, 
neither should he eat; but some adults will 
not work; therefore some adults should not 
eat. Now by placing the word adult in each 
proposition, without which it would be a so- 
phistical argument, the reader may see, that 
as infants can have no place in either, there 
is nothing to forbid their support, their sal- 
vation, or their baptism. They only prove 
that an idle adult should not be supported; 
that an impenitent adult will not be saved; 
and, that he has no right at all to baptism. 
Once more—As I have nothing in view, 
so much as truth, I have a great desire to 
make this matter plain to the meanest capa- 
city. For if I am clearly understood in this 
part, my end on the present argument is at- 
tained; and what I have before advanced 
upon it will be, in a great measure, useless. 
The reader, therefore, is desired to observe, 
that the design of this argument is to conclude 
against the baptism of infants. Then, as in- 
fants are to be in the conclusion, they must 
also be in the premises; for the rule says, 
“there should not be more in the conclusion 
than was in the premises; because the con- 
clusion is to be drawn from the premises.”’ 
Now to make the argument of the Baptists 
consistent with itself, we must place infants 
in the premises as well as in the conclusion ; 
and then the argument will stand thus: The 


44 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


Scriptures require faith and repentance of in- 
fants in order to baptism; but infants have 
not faith, &c.; therefore infants are not to be 
baptized. The reader may discern an agree- 
ment, in the parts of the argument, with each 
other; it has infants in each part, as well in 
the premises, as in the conclusion. But then, 
the fallacy of it is more strikingly evident 
than before: for the error, which before crept 
into the middle, does here stand in front; it 
is in this proposition, the Seriptures require 
faith and repentance of infants in order to 
baptism, which is not true; for infants are 
never required to repent or believe, in order 
either to baptism or salvation. Whereas 
before, when it was said the Scriptures re- 
quire faith and repentance of adults in order 
to baptism; but infants have not faith, &c., 
the error consisted in putting in the word 
“ infants,’ who have no concern at all in the 
requirement. : 

By placing one thing in the premises, and 
another in the conclusion, which is done by 
the Baptists, in this argument, we may be 
able to evince any absurdity, however glar- 
ing. This being the manner of the Baptist 
argument, nothing more is necessary to take 
off its force against infants, but to make the 
premises and conclusion to correspond with 
each other. That is, while it continues to be 
a sophism, it proves against infants; but it 
ceases to prove against them, as soon as ‘it 
is made a good argument. e.g. Faith and 
repentance are required of adults in order to 


INFANT BAPTISM. 45 
‘baptism; but infants have not these: there- 
fore infants are not to be baptized. ‘This is 
nothing more than a pure sophism, and, as 
such, it concludes against infants; but all its 
force against infants is set aside by making 
it good, thus: Faith and repentance are re- 
quired in adults in order to baptism; but 
some adults have not faith and repentance : 
therefore some adults are not to be bap- 
tized. The reader may see, that now it isa 
fair argument, all its force against infants is 
gone. 

Having said thus much on the fallacy of 
this argument, I shall only add one specimen 
of its mode of operation; and that is a speci- 
men, in which it will conclude two contrary 
ways, on one place of Scripture, Rom. 1. 25, 
“ For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep 
the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, 
thy circunicision is made uncircumcision.”’ 

Now the Baptist argument, on the first 
member of this text, will operate thus: Cir- 
cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the 
law; but infants could not keep the law: 
therefore their circumcision must be unpro- 
fitable, that is, is no circumcision, a mere 
nullity; and this reflects on the wisdom of 
God. But if we form the same argument on 
the other member, it will be no nullity nei- 
ther, for thus it will run: If thou be a breaker 
of the law, thy circumcision is made uncir- 
cumcision: But infants could not break the 
law; therefore their circumcision could not 
be made uncircumcision, 7. e. a nullity. Such 


46 ARGUMENTS AGAINST 


is this Baptist argument, that it will prove 
infant circumcision to be something or no- 
thing, according to that part of the text on 
which it is formed; and it is therefore evi- 
dently no more than a sophism. 

I have endeavoured to make the reader 
see, not only that this argument is false, but 
wherein that fallacy consists. That it is 
false, appears in this, that in every instance 
it opposes a known truth; it opposes the cir- 
cumcision’ of infants—the baptism of Jesus 
Christ—the salvation of infants—and, their 
temporal subsistence. The nature of the 
fallacy is the placing of adults in the pre- 
mises, and infants in the conclusion; which 
any person, who has the least knowledge of 
the art of reasoning, must see instantly to be 
repugnant to the laws of truth. Ifthe method 
I have taken to show. wherein the fault con- 
sists, should not be familiar to any reader, it 
is possible he may not apprehend me ; if so, 
I would advise him to read it repeatedly, and 
with serious attention; for 1 am not without 
hope, that even the most common capacity, 
with due attention, will clearly comprehend 
my meaning. On the other hand, I have no 
doubt, but many will readily enter into the 
method, and see what a fallacious argument 
is made use of to support an opinion, I am 
compelled to desert. 

These two arguments being taken away, 
a Baptist has nothing left to place against in- 
fant baptism. I have not met witha single 
person, who, when desired to produce the 


INFANT BAPTISM. 47 


strongest arguments against infants, could 
advance any thing more than what is con- 
tained in these two. While I thought it 
right to oppose the baptism of infants, I 
made use of them against it; but when they 
appeared, as they really are, very erroneous 
and bad, I gave them up; and from that time 
have never been able to preach a baptizing 
sermon. I saw that the whole strength of a 
Baptist was gone. 

By the removal of these two arguments, 
thus much is gained; that whatever can be 
advanced, on the part of infants, will stand 
with undiminished force. For it will now 
avail nothing to say, with the first argument, 
there is no express law for infant baptism ; 
nor will it be of any use to affirm, according 
to the second, that infants have no faith, no 
repentance; because the arguments them- 
selves being fallacious, whatever may be 
urged from them, will be entirely devoid of © 
force against infant baptism. 

Having now finished what I intended on 
the arguments, on one side, I proceed to 
those on the other. I am well persuaded, 
that the Scriptures cannot favour both sides; 
and had the arguments against infant bap- 
tism been good, I am convinced that nothing 
in the word of God would have given it any 
countenance. But since the truth must be 
either for or against the baptism of infants, 
and the arguments against being futile, it is 
certain the truth must lie on the other side. 


48 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


CHAPTER II. 


Arguments on the side of Infant Baptism. 


Inrant baptism is to be proved, in the same 
way, as female communion. In the case of 
female communion, all the Baptists I have 
ever conversed with, on that subject, make 
use of inference and analogy; and, though in 
them it is ridiculous, they are not able to 
prove it inany other way. And this method 
is even adopted by Mr. Booth, as I shall 
more plainly evince in another place; though 
glaringly inconsistent with his own principles. 

As I am now to advance proof in favour 
of infant baptism, the simple method I mean 
to adopt will be the following. In the first 
place, it is a fact acknowledged by the Bap- 
tists themselves, that infants were at an early 
period constituted members of the church of 
God. In the next place, I shall produce 
proof, that they have a right to be so now; 
and that the constitution of God by which 
they were made members, has not been 
altered to this day. In the last place, I shall 
lay down this dilemma, which will conclude 
the whole business, namely: As infants by 
a divine and unaltered constitution have a 
right to be received as church members, they 
must be received either with baptism or with- 
out it. If they are not to be received with- 
‘out baptism, then, the consequence is, that 
they must be baptized, because they must be 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 49 


received.—I now request the reader’s atten- 
tion to each of these in their order. 


ARGUMENT I. 


God has constituted in his Church the membership of infants, 
and admitted them to it by a religious rite. 

In this argument it is proper to take notice 
of two parts. 

I. The church-membership of infants.—A 
church is a society that stands in special re- 
lation to God, being instituted for religious 
purposes. When the persons composing this 
society appear openly in such relation to God, 
it is called a visible church; and of such an 
one Inowspeak. The relation between God 
and this society, is formed by God himself, 
by declaring he is, and will be their God. 
This declaration of God which constituted 
that relation, which indeed did exist from 
the beginning, had an equal regard to adults 
and infants; “Iwill be a God unto thee, and 
to thy seed after thee.”? And hence both 
young and old, who had been duly entered, 
were considered as children of the covenant 
and the kingdom, that is, of the church. The 
rite of circumcision being performed, the cir- 
cumcised was presented to the Lord; which 
is a mode of expression to signify a public 
entering into church-fellowship. 

The case, as now stated, is, I suppose, 
commonly admitted. It is granted by Bap- 
tists, who are the most likely of any to deny 

5 


50 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


it, that infants were members of the Jewish 
church. Mr. Booth grants it, vol. ii. 224. So 
does Mr. Keach, Gold Refined, page 113. 
“That children were admitted members of 
the Jewish church is granted.”” And indeed 
it is not possible to deny this, without deny- 
ing that adults themselves were members, 
which would be the same as denying that 
God had a church in the world. Infants, 
therefore, were constituted by God himself, 
members of his own visible church. 

II. Infants, in order to visible membership, 
were the subjects of a religious rite. That 
circumcision was a religious rite, is as easily 
proved, as that baptism and the Lord’s sup- 
per are such. Mr. Booth, in this case, is in 
a strait betwixt two; he is not willing flatly 
to deny it, nor yet can he prevail on himself 
to acknowledge it. He is very tender upon 
the subject, as if he saw some formidable 
consequence lurking beneath it. See what 
he says, vol. ii. 250. “Baptism is an ap- 
pointment purely religious, and intended for 
purposes entirely spiritual; but circumci- 
sion, besides the spiritual instruction sug- 
gested by it, was a sign of carnal descent, a 
mark of national distinction; and a token of 
interest in those temporal blessings that were 
promised to Abraham.’ Now can any liv- 
ing soul tell from whence Mr. Booth had all 
this? Was it from the Koran or Talmud? To 
show he never took his notion from the Bi-, 
ble, I will set the Bible against him, and him 
against it, 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 


Booth. 


It was a token of 
interest in temporal 


blessings. 


It was a sign of 


carnal descent. 


It was a mark of 
national distinction. 


51. 


Bible. 


It was a token 
of the covenant be- 
tween God and Abra- 
ham, to be a God to 
him and his seed. 

It was a sign of 
circumcision, 7. e. of 
the heart and spirit. 

It was a seal of the 
righteousness of faith. 


Now compare Mr. Booth with fact. 


Booth. 


It was a to- 
ken of inter- 
est in tempo- 
ral blessings. 

It was a 
mark of na- 
tional distinc- 


tion. 

It was a 
sign of carnal 
descent. 


Fact 


Many had the interest 
without the token, and many 
had the token without the 
interest. 

Many other nations had 
the same mark. So it was 
a distinction which did not 
distinguish. 

All Abraham’s male ser- 
vants, and many proselytes, 
were circumcised. Either 
these were descended from 
Abraham, or Mr. Booth’s 
sign was deceptive. 


See what the love of hypothesis can do! 
Could any man have given a poorer account 
of circumcision than Mr. Booth has done ? 


52 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


But was it not, after all, a truly religious 
institution? Mr. Booth is not willing to deny 
this altogether. He seems to grant, at least 
by implication, that it was half a religious rite. 
«“ Baptism,” says he, “is an appointment 
purely religious, for purposes entirely spi- 
ritual.” By his using the words purely and 
entirely as-applied to baptism, and then 
comparing it to circumcision, he seems to 
admit that circumcision was partly a religi- 
ous rite. All he will grant in plain terms, 
concerning the religious nature of this insti- 
tution is, that it “suggested spiritual instruc- 
tion ;”’ which is not peculiar to any rite either 
Jewish or Christian. Iam sorry to seea man, 
of Mr. Booth’s ability, trifle after this sort. 
He certainly knew not what to make of it; 
he saw something in its aspect dreadfully 
formidable to his system, and was afraid of 
its appearing, in that form, in which it is set 
forth in the word of God. These strokes in 
Mr. Booth’s book, and such as these, which I 
intend to notice, convince me more than any 
thing I have ever read, of the fallacy of the 
Baptist’s scheme. 

Leaving Mr. Booth’s erroneous account of 
this ordinance, we will view it as represented 
in the word of God. To see, then, whether 
it is a religious rite, we have only to view it, 
in its various relations to religion; and cir- 
cumcision thus viewed will appear to have 
been of that description, as truly as baptism 
or the Lord’s supper. Let it be considered 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 53 


in its institution—in its application—in its 
obligation — and connexion with religious 
things. 

1. In its institution. In this view of it, it 
was a token of God’s covenant made with 
Abraham, in which he promised to be a God 
unto him, and his seed after him. And then, 
as an appendage, he promised to give him 
and his seed the land of Canaan for his tem- 
poral subsistence. For earthly things are 
appendages to the covenant of grace, they 
are things “added,” as our Lord expresses it, 
to help a saint through this world. 

2. We ‘may view it further, in its applica- 
tion, under the threefold notion of a token, a 
sign, anda seal. Asa token, it is a ratifica- 
tion of God’s grant in covenant, to be a God 
to Abraham and his seed. As a sign, it de- 
notes the grace of God on the heart, where- 
by it is enabled to love God, to worship him, 
and to have no confidence in the flesh. Deut. 
xxx. 6. Rom. ii. 28,29. Phil. iii. 3. And 
therefore it is called a sign of circumcision, 7. e. 
of the circumcision of the heart. As a seal, 
it applies to the righteousness of faith, 7. e. 
the righteousness of Christ, by which men 
are justified. 

. 3 We may consider it, in its connexion. 
And this is, with the Scriptures, Rom. iii. 2. 
“To them were committed the oracles of 
God.” With the promises, Rom. xv. 8. 
“ Now I say—that Jesus Christ was a min- 
ister of the circumcision for the truth of God, 
to confirm the promises made unto the fa 

5* 


54 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


thers.” With baptism, Col. ii. 11, 12, where- 
in these two are spoken of as standing on a 
level with each other, as being each of them 
of the same religious kind. _ 

If we view it in its obligation, we may 
observe, that as it was an entering into the 
visible church of God, so it bound the per- 
son, who received it, to a conformity to all 
other institutions, Gal. iii. 3. Without this 
conformity it profited nothing, for where this 
was wanting, it was deemed a nullity. That 
rite, therefore, which obliges to a conformity 
to religion, must be a religious rite. 

When, therefore, we consider this institu- 
tion, in its use and application, under all these 
views, there can be no doubt of its being a 
religious institution; because its whole use 
and application are so. And as nothing more 
can be said to prove the religious nature of 
baptism and the Lord’s supper; a man might 
as well deny these to be religious ordinances, 
asthe other. And hence itis that Mr. Booth’s 
conduct is the more to be wondered at, who, 
notwithstanding he must have seen all this 
in Scripture, does, without authority from 
the word of God, transform it into a mere 
secular political rite. And this is done to 
destroy all analogy between it and baptism, 
for fear that analogy should prove the de- 
struction of his scheme. 

Mr. Booth in his preface says, non tali auz- 
tlio, nec defensoribus istis. This is to inti- 
mate to the reader, that a good cause does 
not need a bad defence. Now, if we are to 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 55 


form a judgment of the cause he has under- 
taken to support, from the means he makes 
use of, to support it, we cannot suppose the 
cause he has taken in hand, is any other than 
avery bad one. I question if a carnal Jew 
could have given a more frigid, degrading 
account of an institution of God, than he has 
done. According to him, it was only a sign 
of carnal descent—a mark of national dis- 
tinction—a token of interest in temporal 
blessings—it had a political aspect—it was 
performed with political views—and (not 
knowing very well what to do with it, he in- 
troduces a learned word, and says) it was 
adapted to an ecclesiastico-political constitu- 
tion. Thus he. But one thing he forgot— 
he has not given all this the sanction of the 
sacred text. Indeed, if it agree to any thing” 
in the Bible, it agrees best of all to the cir- 
cumcision of those poor Shechemites, who 
were first deceived and then destroyed by 
the sons of Jacob. Gen. xxxiv. 

These two parts of the proposition being 
evinced ; namely, 1. The church-membership 
of infants; and, 2. their admission to it, bya 
religious rite; the whole proposition which 
I undertake to maintain, and to lay as a 
ground-work, from which to conclude the 
baptism of infants, is this; God has consti- 
tuted in his church the membership of in- 
fants, and has admitted them to it by a re- 
ligious rite. Before I pass to the next argu- 
ment, I will make a remark on each part. 

I. From this fact, we learn so much of the. 


56 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


mind of God, as to be able to conclude, that 
there is nothing in a state of infancy, incom- 
patible with church-membership. The rea- 
son is evident; for had there been any thing 
unsuitable in such a practice, God, who is an 
infinitely wise judge of decency and fitness, 
would never have ordained it. This conduct 
of the infinitely wise God, and the practice 
of about two thousand years, stand in direct 
repugnancy to the weak prejudice of Bap- 
tists; who, from the sentiment they, have 
adopted, are led to suppose that there is no- 
thing in nature more ridiculous, than the idea 
of infants being church members. This is 
one instance of human depravity, whereby 
the weakness of man sets itself up against 
the wisdom of God; and as this is the more 
to be admired in those persons, who in other 
respects are desirous of submitting to the 
whole will of God, so it serves to show, 
what a very unhappy influence the admis- 
sion of an erroneous sentiment may gain 
over the mind. 

Il. It appears from this part of the divine 
conduct, in plain opposition to the views of 
Baptists, that the ignorance and want of faith, 
inseparable from a state of infancy, are no im- 
pediments to the administration of a religious 
ordinance ; and this truth should be the more 
regarded by us, as it stands supported by the 
high authority of God; and is asa thousand 
arguments against all those pleas which are 
drawn from the incapacity of infants. For 
while we see those declared fit subjects of a 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. | 57 


religious ordinance, who could know nothing 
of its nature or use; with what prudence or 
piety can any man presume to affirm, that 
infants are incapable of such an ordinance? 
But if any one should take so much autho- 
rity on himself, as to arbitrate against the 
wisdom of God, he would do well to con- 
sider, that God is true, and every man a liar, 
z. e. that judges differently. 


ARGUMENT II. 


s 


The church-membership of infants was never set aside by God 
or man; but continues in force under the sanction of God, 
to the present day 


Tue force of this and the preceding argu- 
ment taken together, may be comprehended 
by any man of common reasoning powers. 
Every one knows, that what was once done, 
and never undone, must of course remain 
the same: and that what was once granted, 
and never revoked, must needs continue as a 
grant. There can be no fallacy in all this. 
These arguments, therefore, being fairly 
maintained, will carry us forward, to a 
dilemma; and that dilemma will bring us 
home to the conclusion. 

In good theory, the proof of this argument 
should not lie upon the Pedobaptist. For 
if I affirm, and prove, that God did settle a 
certain plan respecting church members, and 
another should come and affirm that that 
plan was now altered; it should lie on him 


58 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


to produce his proof that such an alteration 
has taken place ; and the reason is, that what- 
ever God has established should be supposed 
to continue, though we could bring no proof 
of its continuance, unless we are plainly told 
that he has ordered it otherwise. And then, 
since there is not a single text in Scripture to 
prove that the church-membership of infants 
is annulled, this argument should remain in 
force without further proof. However, I 
will waive this privilege, which I might 
justly claim, and proceed to evince the argu- 
ment I have laid down. 

There was only one point of time, in which 
it is even supposed that church-membership 
of infants was set aside; and that was, when 
the Gentiles were taken into a visible church 
state. In that period, several institutions did 
cease, and some new ones were ordained. 
Our only question is, whether the church- 
membership of infants did cease at the same 
time. It is evident that the mere change or 
cessation of institutions could work no change 
upon membership, any more than a man’s 
having his clothes changed can produce a 
change upon the man. All institutions,’ whe- 
ther typical or ratifying, that is, all institutions 
of every kind, are to be considered, in re- 
spect to church members, as means of grace, 
and nourishments for faith, respecting Christ 
the mediator, and the unsearchable riches of 
Christ; and then a change taking place in 
these things, will, in itself, produce no more 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 59 


alteration in the members of the church, than 
a change in a man’s diet will destroy the 
identity of the man. 

I am now to prove the church-member- 
ship of infants, which having been ordained 
of God, was never annulled, but carried for- 
ward into the Gentile church; and so conse- 
quently is in force at the present time. And 
this I shall proceed to do 

From Scripture views of God’s dispensa- 
tion towards the Gentiles, 

Much light might be thrown upon this 
subject, by considering those prophecies of 
the Old Testament, which relate to the call- 
ing in of the Gentiles. This Dr. Williams 
has done to great advantage: but my design 
being brevity, I shall confine myself to pas- 
sages on that subject in the New Testament. 

I. Matt. xxi. 43. “Therefore say I unto 
you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from 
you, and given to a nation bringing forth the 
fruits thereof.” 

The plain meaning of this passage is, that 
as, in times past, the church of God, which 
is his kingdom, was limited to Judea; so, in 
future, he would have a church in the Gen- 
tile world. The taking of the kingdom from 
the Jews, and giving it to the Gentiles, de- 
notes, 

1. The ceasing of a regular church state 
among the Jews. And this actually took 
place, by the destruction of some, and the 
dispersion of others, who did not receive the 
Lord Jesus Christ as sent of God; while 


60 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


those who did receive him, were at length 
removed from Judea, and by degrees lost 
the name of Jew, in that of Christian. Rom. 
xi. 12. 

2. The setting up a regular church state 
among the Gentiles. This, as the cessation 
of the church among the Jews, was gradu- 
ally brought about. For the Gentiles who 
came over to Christ, joining themselves to 
the Jewish church, became in time the larger 
part. So that by the increase of the Gen- 
tiles, and the breaking off of the worthless 
branches among the Jews, nothing remained 
but an entire Gentile church. 

3. The sameness of the church state among 
the Gentiles, with that among the Jews. For 
taking away and giving cannot import a 
change in the thing taken and given; but a 
transfer, the passing of a thing from one to the 
other. The kingdom given to the Gentiles was 
the same that was taken from the Jews: for 
all that was taken from the Jews was given to 
the Gentiles. Now, if we would know what 
was to be the church state among the Gen- 
tiles, we have only to learn what it had been 
among the Jews: for in both cases the church 
state was the same. And then, as it has be- 
fore been proved, and admitted by the Bap- 
tists, that the church state among the Jews 
consisted in the membership of adults and 
infants, the church state among the Gentiles 
must consist of adults and infants too; because 
the same that was taken from the Jews was 
given to the Gentiles. And so it appears 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 61 


from God’s dispensation to the Gentiles, that 
the church-membership of infants was not 
set aside.—I will anticipate two objections 
in this place, which may be urged on each 
of the passages I shall allege. 

1.-It may be said, that in this way of view- 
ing the subject, all the ordinances and rituals 
of the Jewish church must be adopted by the 
Gentile. To this I answer, that these things 
were not of the essence of a church state; 
but only means of grace, and helps to faith 
for the time being. Neither were these taken 
and given, but annulled; they were not trans- 
ferred, but abolished. Rituals are to a church, 
as diet or ornaments are to a man; let the 
diet be changed, and the ornaments removed, 
the essence of the man will be still the same. 
So the state and essence of the church of God, 
before these rituals were ordained, and while 
they were in force, and after their abolition, 
was, and is, and must be, the same. This 
will be handled more fully in another place. 

2. If any should say, it does not appear 
that women in the Jewish church were ad- 
mitted to an initiating rite, and if so, there is 
a difference between the present church and 
the Jewish; I observe in answer, that this 
difference does not imply a removing or 
changing of any thing, but merely that of add- 
ing. That whereas the church state among 
the Jews included males both adult and in- 
fant; so to the Gentile church, together with 
these, there is, by the express order of God, 
the superaddition of females. 

6 


62 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


I would observe further, that the addition 

of females seems to me to be very favourable 
to the argument [am upon; because it isa 
new provision annexed toan old law. Now 
an alteration made ina law, gives an addi- 
tional firmness to all those parts which are 
not altered. And the reason is, it supposes 
that all the unaltered parts are perfectly agree- 
able to the legislator’s mind. And so, when 
the Lord expressly took away the partition 
between Jew and Gentile, and male and fe- 
male, and passed over infants without mak- 
ing the least alteration in their case, he there- 
by gave a superadded confirmation, that the 
church-membership of infants, which had 
been before established, was in every respect 
agreeable to his will. 
Sin Rom. xi. 23, 24. “And they also, if they 
abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted i in 
again: for God is able to graft them in again. 
_ For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree, 
which is wild by nature, and wert grafted 
contrary to nature into a good olive-tree; how 
much more shall these which be the natural 
branches, be grafted into their own olive- 
tyee 7”? 

1. The olive-tree is to denote a visible 
church state. 2. The Jews are said to be na- 
tural branches, because they descended from 
Abraham, to whom the promise was made. 
« T will be a God unto thee and to thy seed.” 
3. The Gentiles were brought into the same 
church state, from which the Jews were bro- 
ken off. 4, The apostle suggests that the 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 6 


Jews will again be grafted into their own 
olive-tree. From whence, with a view to 
my purpose, 1 would notice, 

1. The future state of the Jews, who, he 
says, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be 
grafied in again. Grafting in again is the 
bringing of a person or thing into the same 
condition in which it was before. So the 
grafting in again of the Jews, is putting them 
into the same church state, in which they. 
were before they were broken off. What 
was their church state before they were bro- 
ken off. I answer, as before proved, that it 
consisted of the membership of adults and 
infants. Why then, if it before consisted of 
adults and infants, it will again consist of the 
same: because grafting in again is the placing 
of persons so grafted, in their former state, 
And that is in fact the same state, in which 
they would have continued, if they had never 
been broken off. That is, if it had not been 
for their unbelief, (for which they were cut 
off,) they would have continued, both they 


and their infants, as members of the church’ 


of God. So when it shall please God to give 
them faith, they will be reinstated, 7. e. they 
and. their infants will be members of the 
church of God again. 

In compliance with this idea, I will just 
turn aside to observe, that it is natural for one 
error to lead to another; and that this is not 
more evident in any, than it is in the Baptists. 
They grant that infants were members of the 
Jewish church; and this from them is a very 


7 


64 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


considerable concession. But a concession 
like this, leads to a consequence horribly 
alarming to their system. For if infants were 
once members of the church of God, then, it 
is evident, they were capable of such mem- 
bership ; and then the question will be, When 
did they cease to be members? and why are 
they not so now ? 

To remove this difficulty, the Baptists have 
recourse to this expedient.” For as they can- 
not show from any place of Scripture, that 
infants are expressly set aside from church- 
membership ; they fall to degrading the Jew- 
ish church, its membership and institutions : 
and when they have done, there is hardly 
any church or institution left. What was the 
Jewish church? Mr. Booth, vol. ii. 252. “ It 
was an ecclesiastico-political constitution.” 
What was the membership of it? Mr. Booth, 
page 251. “ An obedient subject of their civil 
government, and a complete member of their 
church state, were the same thing.” What was 
the church institution? Mr. Booth, page 250, 
&e. “It was a sign of carnal descent, a mark 
of national distinction; it had a political aspect, 
and was performed with political views.” I 
wish I had a good casuist at my elbow, to 
explain what kind of church this could be. 
For had I been Mr. Booth, I would, to save 
trouble, have fairly denied that it was any 
church at all. And to say the truth of him, 
he has fairly done all this. 

Now, it is a desperate cause, that leads a 
man to fall upon the very church of God. 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 65 


But this is done to show that there is so great 
a difference between the church that now is, 
and that which once was, (or rather never 
was) that though infants were members of 
the one, they have no right, no capacity, to 
be members of the other. 

This is one shift to ward off the conse- 
quence I have mentioned. But now we want 
another shift, to escape the consequence that 
is yet to come. “ And they, if they abide not 
still in unbelief, shall be grafted in again.’ 
Grafting in again is the bringing of persons 
or things into their former condition. Now, 
if the former Jewish church state was all po- 
litical, as Mr. Booth will have it, then the con- 
sequence will be, that when the Jews shall 
confess the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe 
with their heart, that God raised him from 
the dead, &c. and shall in consequence be re- 
ingrafted into their own olive-tree, they will 
be all political again! A mere ecclesiastico- © 
political constitution! wherein an obedient 
subject of civil government, and a complete 
member of a church, will be the same thing! 
Well, when this shall take place, infant church 
membership may come about again. 

But I return from this digression to notice, 

2. The present state of the Gentiles. It ap- 
pears from the text, that the church state is 
the same to the Gentiles, as it had been to 
the Jews, and as it will be to the Jews, in 
some future period, when it shall please God 
to graft theminagain. And the reason of this 
is, because each in their turn belong to the 

6 * 


66 ARGUMENTS UN THE SIDE 


same olive-tree, 7. e. the visible church state. 
And therefore, as infants made a part of the 
church before the Jews were cut off, and will 
again make a part, when they shall be rein- 
grafted; they must likewise make a part 
among the Gentiles: because the same olive- 
tree, 7. e. church state, must confer the same 
privilege on all who shall be in it. 

This truth will receive additional confir- 
mation, and the contrary error will be more 
evident, if we consider, that since infants 
were once members among the Jews; and 
when their reingrafting shall take place, will 
be so again; so, if among the Gentiles they 
are deemed improper subjects of membership, 
and, in consequence of that, are universally 
rejected, two things will follow: 1. There will 
be, in the mean time, a very unhandsome 
schism in the ecclesiastical chain. For though 
infants were found members in the first ages 
of the church, and will be so in the last, there 
will be none to fill up the middle. And, 2. 
There will also be, in future time, a very un- 
pleasant discordancy. For when the Jews 
shall be grafted in again, they will adopt 
their old practice of receiving infants to mem- 
bership; while the Gentiles,denying they have 
any such right, will persist in shutting them 
out; and all this, as some suppose, in the spi- 
ritual reign of Christ. 

III. Rom. xi. 17, “And if some of the 
branches be broken off, and thou being a 
wild olive-tree, were grafted in among them, 
and with them partakest of the root and fat- 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 67 


ness of the olive tree ; boast not thyself against 
the branches.”’ 

1. The olive-tree, as before noted, is the 
visible church state. 2. The branches are 
members of the visible church. 3. Some of 
these were broken off, and some remained. 
4. The Gentiles who were called of God; 
were united to this remnant; for they were 
grafted in among them. From this view of 
the passage, I draw these three conclusions : 

1. That there was no discontinuance of the 
ancient church state; in its essence, it re- 
mained the same as it had always been. 
That this is a true conclusion appears from 
hence; the text informs us that some of the 
branches were broken off; and if only some, 
then not all; and that remnant, continuing in 
their former state, constituted the still exist- 
ing church of God. And then it follows, that 
as the church state continued as before, the 
membership of infants must likewise continue: 
because the membership of infants was a part 
of that church state. And this is the reason, 
that no new regulation, respecting infants, 
was made, or was necessary to be made; for 
all, who knew what God had ordained re- 
specting membership, knew very well what 
to do with their infants, without any further 
information on that subject. This is the first 
conclusion, wiz. that the ancient church state 
was not dissolved when the Gentiles were 
called in. And hence it follows, 

2. That the bringing in of the Gentiles did 
not constitute a new church. This passage 


68 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


informs us, that when the Gentiles were 
called in, they became members of the church 
already constituted: “ They were grafted in 
among them,” and so became one body, one 
fold; that “ with them they might partake of 
the root and fatness of the olive-tree.”? The 
first Gentiles of whose calling we read, are 
said to have been added to the church; but 
there was no church existing to which they 
could be added, but the ancient Jewish church, 
of which all the apostles and disciples of our 
Lord were members. If the Gentiles, there- 
fore, were added to the old church, or, as the 
text has it, were grafted in among them, and 
with them did partake of the root and fatness 
of the olive-tree, then it is evident, that the 
ancient church continued to exist, and no 
new one was formed at the calling in of the 
Gentiles. And then I conclude, 

3. That infants were in a state of member- 
ship, in that very church to which the Gen- 
tiles were joined. And this must certainly 
be true, because they were grafted into that 
church, of which infants are, by the Baptists 
themselves, granted to have been members. 
And then, it is plain that infants made a part 
of that church, called by some the gospel 
church, the pure church of primitive apostolic 
times. This conclusion must needs be ad- 
mitted, unless any one will affirm, that the 
ancient church state was entirely dissolved ; 
or else, that the Gentiles were not united to 
this ancient church. And to affirm either of 
these, will be to affirm against the word of 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. — 69 
God in general, and this text in particular. 
And herein the cause of the Baptists is ruined 
both ways; for if they maintain, that the old 
church was dissolved, and the Gentiles form- 
ed into a new one, their cause is ruined, by 
maintaining it against the word of God. But 
if they grant that the Jewish church continued, 
and that the Gentiles were grafted in among 
them, which is the real truth, then their cause 
is ruined that way. For then, as infants were 
in church-fellowship, in what is called the 
primitive apostolic church, it follows, that 
those societies, who admit infants to fellow- 
ship, act agreeably to the apostolic pattern ; 
and consequently all those societies, who re- 
fuse to admit them, are in an error. 

IV. Eph. ii. 14. “ For he is our peace, who 
hath made both one, and hath broken down 
the middle wall of partition between us.”’ 

1. The terms [both and us] in this place, 
mean Jews and Gentiles. 2. A partition is 
that which separates one society or family 
from another. 3. It is said to have been bro- 
ken down by Jesus Christ, who is called our 
peace, because he made peace by the blood 
of his cross. 4. The breaking down of a 
partition wall, brings the two societies, or 
families, into one. From this passage, the very 
same conclusions must be drawn as from the 
preceding : 

1. That the Jewish church continued as 
before, and was not dissolved at the calling 
in of the Gentiles ; and the reason is, the tak 


70 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


ing down of a partition implies no dissolution 
of any society. 

2. That the Gentiles were not formed into 
anew church: because the breaking down of 
a partition united them to the Jewish church, 
and “ made both one,”’ 

3. The infants were in actual membership, 
in that church to which the Gentiles were 
united ; because adults and infants being in 
fellowship among the Jews, the removal of 
the partition brought adults and infants into 
union with the Gentiles. And then, the point 
is clearly gained, namely, that infants hold 
the same place among the Gentiles, as they 
held before among the Jews. 

I again affirm, that the point is evidently 
carried, unless one of these three things can 
be maintained: 1. That God excluded infants 
before the partition was taken down; or, 2. 
at the time it was taken down; or, 3. at some 
time after. For if one or other of these can- 
not be supported, then infants retain their 
right to church-membership to this day. Can . 
any one maintain the first ; that God excluded 
infants before the partition wall was broken 
down ?—Upon what period will he, ix?— 
And by what scripture will he support it ?— 
Will any one affirm the third; that God ex- 
cluded them after the partition was taken 
down?—lI suppose not. For that would be 
granting that the Gentiles continued some 
time, 7. e. till the exclusion took place in fel- 
lowship, in that church in which infants were 
members. And then, I might ask again, in 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 71 


what time did the expulsion take place? 
And where is it recorded in the word of 
God?—But I suppose, that he who contends 
for such an exclusion, will affirm the second; 
that infants were excluded at the time the 
partition wall was broken down. If so, I 
ask, who did exclude them? And how was 
it done? It could not be done by the mere 
taking down of the partition wall; for the 
taking down the partition unites those who 
before were separate, but does not exclude 
any. 
But if they were excluded, it must be done 
either expressly or implicitly. The first is not 
true; for there is no express exclusion of in- 
fants in all the Scriptures. And the second 
will not do for a Baptist; for, as he will not 
admit implicit proof on the side of infants, so 
neither can he urge implicit proof against 
them. But let him take the advantage of 
implication; and say, that infants are exclud- 
ed from church-membership, by all those 
places which require faith and repentance, 
&e. in order to baptism. To this I reply, that 
these places of Scripture can no more exclude 
infants from membership, than they exclude 
them from glory. Aud the fallacy of all this 
has been already fully evinced, when the 
second argument against infant baptism was 
considered: and to that part, for his satisfac- 
tion, I refer the reader. If, then, they were 
not excluded before the partition was taken 
down, nor at the time, nor at any time since, 
they were not excluded at all. And then the 


72 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


consequence will be, that infants, according 
to the will of God, are possessed of a right to 
church-fellowship under the present dispen- 
sation, and to the present day. 

By these four passages, all relating to God’s 
dispensation towards the Gentiles, it appears, 
that the church-membership of infants was 
Jeft undisturbed, and was carried forward 
into the Gentile church; where it continues 
still the same as when first instituted, And 
the importance of this fact, in the present in- 
quiry, is so very considerable, that whoever 
admits it, must be compelled to admit the 
right of infants to baptism, as a necessary 
consequence. Now, that God did ordain 
their church-membership has already been 
evinced, and granted by Baptists; and that 
to the present day, it has never been annulled, 
is what I am engaged to prove. I will, there- 
fore, in addition to these four Seriptures, 
which of themselves clearly prove the, fact, 
bring forward a variety of evidence, which 
serves to corroborate this important truth. 

1. There is in the New Testament no law 
whatever to set aside the primitive right of 
infants to church-membership. 

If a law could be found, in the New Tes- 
tament, to repeal that which had been estab- 
lished in the Old, I grant freely, that all that 
has been said. on the four places of Scripture, 
would signify nothing. But if no such law 
exist, the reasoning on the preceding pas- 
sages will not only remain untouched, but 
will acquire a livelier force from that very 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 73 


fact. I need not prove to a Baptist, that the 
New Testament contains no law, by which 
infant membership is prohibited; he readily 
grants it; but adds in reply, that there was 
no necessity that such a law should be fram- 
ed. Let us examine the thought. 

If indeed nothing had been done respect- 
ing infants, this answer would have been a 
good one; but when the church-membership 
of infants is considered as an ancient estab- 
lishment, the answer is nothing to the pur- 
pose. For as the case in reality stood, the 
want of a law to set aside infant membership 
left it in its original state, to continue down 
to the end of time. And how could it be 
otherwise? For who in this world was to 
alter it? It came down to Gentile times, in 
all the force an establishment can be sup- 
posed to have, or need to have, in order to 
itscontinuance. It had the precept of God— 
it had the partiality of parents—it had the 
practice of near two thousand years. If 
such an institution as this needed no law to 
set it aside, which is what the Baptists affirm; 
the true reason must be, because it was not 
the design of God it should be set aside. 
And what could have been a greater proof 
of the design of God to perpetuate it, than 
taking no measures to stop its progress? So 
that he, who grants that no such law was 
made, does in effect admit, that it is now a 
standing ordinance in the church of God, to 
receive infants to membership. And then 
he must grant too, that they should be bap- 

7 


74 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


tized; because there is no other way of re- 
ceiving them. 

But though a Baptist admits there is no 
express law against their membership and 
baptism, yet he affirms that the requirement 
of faith and repentance does of itself exclude 
infants. ‘This is the purport of the Baptists’ 
second argument against infants, which I 
have proved to be a mere sophism. For 
when faith and repentance are required, in 
order either to baptism or salvation, a very 
easy distinction will make it plain, that in- 
fants are not excluded in either case. And 
this distinction is easy and obvious to every 
person. ‘ 

1. It was a very easy one toa Jew. For 
while he knew that infants were received 
into the church by circumcision, he likewise’ 
knew that every adult who was circumcised, 
put himself under immediate obligation to 
confess his sins, to bring his sacrifice, and to 
conform to all the laws of that church. He 
was very sensible an infant could not do 
this; and yet he saw it right to circumcise 
the infant. So when he heard of faith, and 
repentance, and confession of sin, respecting 
baptism, as a medium of entering into the 
church, he had nothing to do but to use the 
same distinction, and all would be plain and 
easy as before. 

2. The distinction is easy to a Peedobap- 
tist. For he knows, that if the person be an 
adult, he must discover a disposition suited 
to the nature and design of the ordinance- 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 75 


but he knows, at the same time, that this 
was never designed to affect an infant, and 
that it can be no bar to his baptism, or bless- 
edness. 

3. This distinction is easy to a Baptist. 
For notwithstanding he is well persuaded, 
that he who believeth not shall not be saved, 
yet he knows an infant may be saved, though 
an infant do not believe. All this to him is 
easy and natural, and nothing in the world 
more plain. If this be so easy a distinction, 
it may be asked, why cannot a Baptist carry 
it to baptism, as well as to any thing else? I 
answer, he can if he please; for it arises 
from no defect of understanding that he does 
not do it;—but it is an unpleasant thing to 
employ a distinction, so as to destroy one’s 
own sentiments. 

In short, it is only considering, that an in- 
fant is not an adult, and that an adult is not 
an infant, than which nothing can be more 
easy; and then the requirement of faith and 
Tepentance is no more a law against the 
membership and baptism of infants, than it 
is against their salvation. All I meant here, 
was to affirm that there is no law, in the 
New Testament, to overrule the church- 
membership of infants; and this is a cor- 
roborating evidence, that their membership, 
which had been divinely instituted, continues 
the same down to the present time. 

2. The Jews, at large, had no apprehen- 
sion of the exclusion of infants; they neither 
oppose nor approve, which they doubtless 


76 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


would have done, if such an exclusion had ~ 
taken place. 

This is a circumstance which merits par- 
ticular attention, and has no small influence 
upon the present question. For as every 
material alteration in old customs is apt to 
stir up some opposition; so, had such a 
change as this been introduced, by which 
the infant offspring would have been put 
back from their former place in the church 
of God, it must have furnished occasion to a 
variety of animadversions: some, perhaps, 
might have been for it, while many would 
have opposed the new plan. That this 
would have happened, had such a revolu- 
tion taken place, will appear still more cer- 
tain, if we consider the nature of such a 
change, and the persons who would have 
felt themselves hurt by its introduction. 

1. As to the change itself, it had a ten- 
dency to affect in a very sensible part. And 
this is a clear case, whether we consider the 
tender age of the subjects—or their number 
—or the privilege to which they were ad- 
mitted—or the length of time through which 
the practice had been carried—or lastly, the 
divine authority which gave rise to that 
practice. Here is a practice of two thousand 
years’ standing. The privilege was that of 
admitting infants to membership in the church 
of God—these infants formed a number in 
Israel exceedingly great. And this practice 
did not take its rise from some dark verbal 
or written tradition; but stood supported by 


\ 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 17 


the lively oracles of God. Such was the 
custom which the Baptists suppose was an- 
nulled about this time. 

2. On the other hand, if we take into con- 
sideration the character of those persons 
among whom this custom had prevailed, 
and among whom it is supposed to have 
ceased, we shall have sufficient reason to 
think it impossible that a custom of this na- 
ture should be abrogated, and they not op- 
pose a single word. As to their character, 
it is certain, that,a few only excepted, they 
were, upon the whole, the deadly enemies of 
Christ and his doctrine. They were strongly 
attached to the forms and ceremonies of reli- 
gion. They would wrangle for a rite, quar- 
rel for a fast, and almost fight for a new 
moon. Every one knows what disturbance 
they made in the church of God, about such 
things as these. 

Now is it possible, that such a change 
could be brought about, and among such a 
people, in a manner so still and silent, that 
in all the New Testament we do not read, 
that they ever said a word about it, for or 
against? No priest nor publican; no phari- 
sée, lawyer, or libertine; neither pious nor 
profane ; neither zealous, moderate, or luke- 
warm, in all the land of Israel, oppose a sin- 
gle sentence, or ask a reason why. But 
since this must have been a change so re- 
markable ; and they among whom it is sup- 
posed to have happened, not the most mo- 
dest ; how came they to be so silent, so shy ? 

7* 


78 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


What made them so passive, so peaceable, 
so complying ? ‘Nothing. They were neither 
complying, passive, nor peaceable, nor slow 
to speak, nor slow to wrath, when any old 
forms were invaded; but they were very 
much so about the change in question; and 
the true reason of it is, it never took place. 
There is another evidence, that the church- 
membership of infants was never annulled by 
God or man; and that is this: 

3. Our Lord and his apostles take special 
notice of infants, and, instead of excluding 
them, they speak of them as still possessing 
a right to membership in the church of God. 

The notice taken of infants by our Lord 
and his apostles, I call special; because it is 
not such as God takes of his creatures in a 
way of common providence; as the giving 
of food to a stranger, the satisfying the desire 
of every living thing, or hearing the ery of a 
young raven when he calls upon him. Such 
notice as this, God takes of all his creatures. 
But that which I now mean relates to mat- 
ters of another nature, religious matters, the 
things of the kingdom of God, and our Lord 
Jesus Christ. The passages I shall bring 
are not intended to prove any new institu- 
tion respecting infants, for nothing of this 
kind took place; but as their chureh-mem- 
bership had been long settled, I only mean 
to show that our Lord speaks ofthem, under 
that idea, as the acknowledged members of 
the church of God. And hereby I mean to 
evince, that their membership, which had 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 79 


been long established,.was never annulled to 
the present day. To this end I allege, 

L Luke ix. 47,48. “And Jesus took a 
child, and set him by him, and [* when he had 
taken him in his arms,’ Mark ix. 36.] he 
said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this 
child, in my name, receiveth me: And who- 
soever shall receive me, receiveth him that 
sent me: For he that is least among you all, 
the same shall be great.”” In this passage 
we have three things very observable: 

1. The subject spoken of, a little child. 
There can be no doubt, but this was a child 
in regard of his age; as the circumstance of 
our Lord’s taking him in his arms, makes 
this certain beyond dispute. And it is also 
evident, that what our Lord said did not ap- 
ply to this child alone, as though something 
peculiar to himself led our Lord so to speak ; 
since he makes it a thing general and com- 
mon to other children. The words of Mark 
are, “ Whosoever shall receive one of such 
children in my name.’”? He meant, therefore, 
that child in his arms, and other little child- 
ren like him. 

2. The action respecting this child. “ Who- 
soever shall receive this child in my name.”’ 
To receive a person is to treat him suitably 
to his character, place, and station. John i. 
11. “He came unto his own, and his own 
received him not.”’? Rom. xiv. 1. “ Him that 
is weak in the faith receive ye.”? To receive 
a person in the name of Christ, is to treat 


80 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


him as one belonging to Christ, as one in 
visible union with him, as a member of that 
church, of which he is the head. Matt. x. 
40. “He that receiveth you, receiveth me; 
and he that receiveth me, receiveth him.that 
sent me.” This is spoken of the apostles of 
Christ, and intends a treatment suitable to 
their character, and the relation they stood 
in to him. So John xiii. 20. Then the 
meaning is, Whosoever shall receive this 
child, or one of such children, in my name, 
2. €. as persons belonging to me, and in visi- 
ble union with myself, receiveth me, i. e. 
treateth me as the visible head of the church 
of God. 

Whosoever shall receive this child, or one 
of such children, in my name! Remarkable 
phrase! I have pondered it in my own mind, 
and wish to submit it to any casuist, with 
this question: is it possible to receive a per- 
son in the name of Christ, without consider- 
ing that person as visibly belonging to Christ? 
I own, that to me, it appears impossible. But 
as Christ knows best what his own words 
imply, he shall determine the question. Mark 
ix. 41. “ Whosoever shall give you a cup of 
water to drink in my name, because ye belong 
to Christ.”” So to give to any in his name, is 
to give to them, because they belong to Christ. 
And then, when Christ speaks of receiving 
little children in his name, we are to consider 
little children as visibly belonging to him. 
And if they visibly belong to him, who is 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 81 


Head of the church, it is because they visi- 
bly belong to that church, of which he is 
Head. : 

3. The reason of this action. This reason 
is twofold: 1. As it respected God and Christ; 
“ Whosoever shall receive this child in my 
name, receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth 
me, receiveth him that sent me.’? The force 
of the reason lies in this; receiving little child- 
ren in Christ’s name, 7. e. treating them as 
visibly belonging to him, is showing a proper 
regard to God and Christ. But why should 
this be considered as showing a proper regard 
to God? I answer, I know no reason in the 
world but one: and that is, because God had 
long before constituted infants visible mem- 
bers of his own church, and still continued 
to them the same place and privilege. 2. As 
it respected themselves. “He that is least 
‘among you all, the same shall be great.” 
This reason suggests three things: 1. our 
Lord speaks of his disciples, in a collective 
capacity, as forming a religious society or 
church; “ He that is least among you all.” 
And this, indeed, was truly the case; for 
these disciples, with others, were branches 
in the olive-tree; and such branches as were 
not broken off. 2. Our Lord speaks of them, 
as having little children in their society or 
church; ‘ He that is least among you all, the 
same shall be great.” Now, though it is 
true, that adults on some accounts may be 
called little children, yet the term [least] can- 
not mean adults in this place ; because this is 


82 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


given as a reason why they should receive 
this little child. For what God will do for 
an adult can be no motive to the receiving 
an infant. If we say, God can make that 
adult, which you deem very little, to become 
great; therefore receive this little child: this 
would be no reason at all. But if it be taken . 
thus; God can make the least child in your 
community to become great, therefore receive 
this little child; the reasoning will be good, 
and becoming the wisdom of Christ. And 
this is no more than a plain fact; children 
were at this time the acknowledged members 
of the church of God. 3. Our Lord speaks 
thus, to induce them to'pay a proper regard 
to children. “The least among you shall 
become great; therefore receive this child in 
my name.”? Receiving may respect the first 
act of recognizing a person a member of a 
church; or all subsequent acts, by which we 
treat them as such. Our Lord’s expression 
is applicable to both, and enjoins both on his 
disciples. This is one instance of special no- 
tice taken of infants, in which they are con- 
sidered as holding a place in the church of 
God. 

Mark x. 14. “But when Jesus saw it, he 
was much displeased, and said unto them, 
Sutfer the little children to come unto me, 
and forbid them not: for of such is the king- 
dom of God.” 

The persons who were brought, are said 
by Mark to have been “ young children,”’ our 
Lord calls them “little children,’? and Luke 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. | 83. 


calls them “infants.’? There can be no doubt 
but they were such as were in an infantile 
state. The design, for which they were 
brought, is said to be, that he should put his 
hands on them, and pray. Some of the Bap- 
tists swppose they were diseased children, and 
were brought to our Lord to be healed; but 
of this there is nothing said. It is most likely 
they were brought to receive the benediction 
of Christ. Mark x. 16. 

That this passage regards infants, as con- 
tinuing in a state of church-membership, 
which is all I produce ‘it for, will appear by 
considering of whom our Lord spake, and 
what he spake of them. 

1. Of whom hespake. There can be very 
little difficulty on this part of the subject, as 
we are plainly told, what the persons were 
who were brought to him, and of whom it 
is evident he spake. Some of the Baptists 
remarking upon the phrase ton toiouton, of 
such, or of such like, affirm that our Lord 
meant adults of a child-like disposition, and 
that of these, and not of the infants, he said, 
Of such is the kingdom of God. This con- 
struction, which indeed has nothing to sup- 
port it, will appear very uncouth, when we 
consider these words of our Lord, asa reason 
for bringing and permitting the little children 
to come to him: suffer them to come unto 
me, for of such is the kingdom of God. But 
this exposition, besides that it makes our 
Lord speak obscurely, represents him as giv- 
ing @ reason quite distant from the subject he 


84 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


was upon. For whereas a reason for coming 
should be taken from those who are to come, 
and not from others; this exposition makes 
our Lord say, Suffer these to come, because 
those belong to the kingdom. To say, adults 
belong to the kingdom of God, is no good 
reason for bringing infants to Christ. It isa 
much better one to say, Suffer these little 
children to come, because these little children, 
and others like them, belong to the kingdom 
of God. But if it be said, others belong to 
the kingdom of God, because they are like 
infants, then infants must belong to the king- 
dom of God because they are like them. The 
truth is, our Lord evidently speaks of infants 
as he had done before, in the preceding pas- 
sage. 

2. What he spake of them: of such is the 
kingdom of God; that is, such belong to the 
kingdom. Our inquiry is, what kingdom did 
our Lord mean? was it the church, or a state 
of glory? If the Lord meant the church, then 
he has asserted what I contend for, that in- 
fants were spoken of by him, as members of 
the church; and, therefore, the fact is esta- 
blished. But the Baptists in general under- 
stand this of a state of glory, and allow in- 
fants to belong to that, but deny that they 
belong to the church. This, indeed, is grant- 
ing the greater, and denying the less; and 
therefore an argument may be taken, from 
what they grant, to destroy what they deny ; 
that is, an argument @ majore ad minus, from 
the greater to the less. If infants belong to 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 85 


a state of glory, which is the greater; then 
much more do they belong to a church-state, 
which is the less. Besides, as the institution 
of a church is a dispensation of God, which 
leads to glory, it is absurd to grant persons 
a place in glory, and at the same time deny 
them a place in that dispensation which leads 
to it. 

Though to affirm, that our Lord, by the 
kingdom of God, intended a state of glory, 
does not militate against, but rather concludes 
for the church-membership of infants; there 
are some considerations which serve to evince 
that our Lord intended the church on earth 
chiefly, if not only; for I have some doubt 
whether he did not intend both, though the 
church more particularly. It is to be observ- 
ed, in the first place, that these words, “of 
such is the kingdom of God,’’ were spoken 
to the apostles, as a reason for their suttering, 
and a rebuke for their hindering, little child- 
ren to come unto him. Now it is always 
more natural, when we intend to reason with, 
or rebuke any person, to fix upon that asa 
reason, which is most familiar to him. The 
apostles were well acquainted with the mem- 
bership of infants in the church, as a practice 
which had prevailed in their nation for many 
centuries; whereas they could know but little 
of the state of infants with respect to glory. 
Now as the reason, why these little children 
should be suffered to come, was, that they 
belonged to the kingdom of God; and as this 
was designed, at the same time, as a rebuke; 

8 


86 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


it must be evident, that our Lord intended 
that idea of the kingdom with which they 
were most familiar. For had it been meant 
of a state of glory, the apostles might very 
well have pleaded ignorance; but they could 
not be ignorant that infants belonged to the 
church, and therefore the reproof could not 
come home to them, but under that idea. 
For in that, they acted contrary to a principle 
they knew, i in keeping those, who belonged 
to the church, from the church’s Head. 

It may be further remarked, that it is high- 
ly reasonable to conclude, that our Lord in- 
tended the same reason, for infants coming 
to him, as he had urged to others, for their 
receiving them. Others were to receive in- 
fants in his name; and with this to enforce 
it, that whosoever received them in his name, 
received him, &c. This expression denotes 
a relation to himself; as if he had said, Re- 
ceive them, because they belong to me, re- 
ceive them as you would a disciple. This 
is a reason that has respect to present rela- 
tion; and if it be natural to suppose, that our 
Lord gives a similar reason for their coming 
to him, the kingdom of God will not mean a 
future state of blessedness, but a present 
church state, to which they belong. More- 
over, it may be said with much more truth 
of infants in general, and it is of such our 
Lord speaks, that they belong to a church on 
earth, than to a state of glory ; because many 
may belong to the former who do not belong 
to the latter. And whereas it cannot be said 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 87 


of infants, as such, that they belong to a state 
of glory, for then all would be saved, because 
all have been infants; but it could be said of 
infants, as infants, where our Lord was, that 
they belonged to the church on earth. 

I only introduce this to show, that our 
Lord, in saying, Of such is. the kingdom of 
God, did recognize infants as church-mem- 
bers. And against this sense of the kingdom, 
as meaning the church, the Baptists bring 
only one objection, viz. the incapacity of in- 
fants. But this is removed by the practice 
of many centuries; which shows that God 
does not judge of incapacity, after the man- 
nerofmen. What our Lord said, as it proves 
the membership of infants, which is all I 
brought it for, so it is no more than what 
was familiar to the whole nation. 

Acts il. 38, 39. “Then Peter said unto 
them, Repent and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ; for the re- 
mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto 
you, and to your children, and to all that are 
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
shall call.’? 

As this passage is only brought forward to 
show, that infants are speken of in the New 
Testament, as church-members, agreeable to 
the ancient dispensation of God; I shall con 
fine myself to these three conclusions: 

I. That the phrase, “to you, and to you 
children,’’ intends adults and infants. 

_ IL That this promise must comprehend 


88 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


adults and infants, wherever it comes, even 
as long as God shall continue his word to us. 

III. That infants are placed in the same 
relation to baptism, as they were of old to 
circumcision. 

These I shall now proceed to evince ; and 
in the first place I affirm, 

I., That the phrase, To you and to your 
children, intends adults and infants. This 
may be proved by considering, 

1. The resemblance between this promise 
and that in Gen. xvii. 7. “To be a God unto 
thee, and unto thy seed after thee.”” The 
resemblance between these two lies in two 
things; 1. Each stands connected with an or- 
dinance, by which persons were to be admit- 
ted into church-fellowship; the one by cir- 
cumcision, the other by baptism. 

Both agree in phraseology; the one is, “ to 
thee, and to thy seed ;” the other is, “to you 
and to your chiidren.” Now every one 
knows that the word “seed”? means children ; 
and that children means seed; and that they 
are precisely the same. From these two 
strongly resembling features, viz. their con- 
nexion with a similar ordinance, and the 
sameness of the phraseology, I infer, that the 
subjects expressed in éach, are the very same. 
And as it is certain that parents and infants 
were intended by the one; it must be equally 
certain that both are intended by the other. 

2. The sense, in which the speaker must 
have understood the sentence in question. 
The promise is, to you and to your children. 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 89 


In order to know this, we: must consider 
who the speaker was, and from what source 
he received his religious knowledge. The 
Apostle, it is evident, was a Jew, and brought 
up in the Jewish church. He knew the prac- 
tice of that church, with respect to those who 
were admitted to be its members. He knew, 
that he himself had been admitted in infancy, 
and that it was the ordinary practice of the 
church to admit infants to membership. And 
he likewise knew, that in this they acted on 
the authority of that place, where God pro- 
mises to Abraham, “to be a God unto him, 
and to his seed.””, Now if the Apostle knew 
all this; in what sense could he understand 
the term children, as distinguished from their 
parents? I have said, that children, [¢ekna] 
and seed, [sperma] mean the same thing. 
And as the Apostle well knew, that the term 
seed intended infants, though not mere in- 
fants only ; and that infants were circumcised, 
and received into the church, as being the 
seed; what else could he understand, by the 
term children, when mentioned with their 
parents? Those who will have the Apostle 
to mean, by the term children, adult posteri- 
ty only, have this infelicity attending them, 
that they understand the term differently 
from all other men; and this absurdity that 
they attribute to the Apostle a sense of the 
word, which to him must have been the 
most unfanwliar and forced. And, therefore, 
that sense of the word for which they con- 
tend, is the most unlikely of all to be the true 

a ‘ 


$0 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


one, because it is utterly improbable that a 
person should use a word in that sense which , 
to him, and to all the world beside, was al- 
together unfamiliar. 

3. In what sense his hearers must have 
understood him, when he said, “The pro- 
mise is to you, and to your children.” 

The context informs us, that many of 
Peter’s hearers, as he himself was, were 
Jews. They had been accustomed for many 
hundred years to receive infants, by circum- 
cision, into the church ; and this they did, as 
before observed, because God had promised 
to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed. 
They had understood this promise, to mean. 
parents and their infant offspring; and this 
idea was become familiar by the practice of 
many centuries. What then must have been 
their views, when one of their own com- 
munity says to them, “The promise is to 
you, and to your children?” If their prac- 
tice of receiving infants was founded on a 
promise exactly similar, as it certainly was; 
how could they possibly understand him, but 
as meaning the same thing, since he himself 
used the same mode of speech? This must 
have been the case, unless we admit this ab- 
surdity, that they understood him in a sense 
to which they had never been accustomed. 

How idle a thing it is, in a Baptist, to 
come with a lexicon in his hand, and a criti- 
cism in his head, to inform us that tekna, 
children, means posterity! Certainly it does, 
and so it means the youngest infants. The 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 91 


verb ¢ikto, from which it comes, signifies to 
bring forth, z. e. the offspring. And are not 
infants of that number? But the Baptists 
will have it that ¢ekna, children, in this 
place, means only adult posterity. And, if 
so, the Jews to whom he spoke, unless they 
understood him in a way in which it was 
morally impossible they should, would in- 
fallibly have understood him wrong. Cer- 
tainly all men, when acting freely, will un- 
derstand words in that way which is most 
familiar to them; and nothing could be more 
familiar to the Jews, than to understand such 
a speech, as Peter’s, to mean adults and in- 
fants. So that if the Jews, the awakened 
Jews, had apprehended the Apostle to mean 
only adults, when he said, “To you and 
your children;’? they must have had an 
understanding of such a peculiar construc- 
tion, as to make that sense of a word, which 
to them was totally unnatural and forced, to 
become familiar and easy. 

We should more certainly come at the 
truth, if, instead of idly criticising, we could 
fancy ourselves Jews, and in the habit of cir- 
cumcising infants, and receiving them into 
the church. And then, could we imagine 
one of our own nation and religion, to ad- 
dress us in the very language of Peter in 
this text, « The promise is to you and your 
children ;”? let us ask ourselves, as in the 
sight of God, whether we could ever suppose 
him to mean adult posterity only? Or if, in- 
stead of putting ourselves in the situation of 


92 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


Jews, we should suppose the Apostle to ad- 
dress the members of the Church of England, 
in the same phraseology, as he did the Jews, 
can any person doubt, whether they would 
understand him to mean adults and infants ? 
It is certainly impossible. And why? Be- 
cause they have been for ages in the habit of 
receiving infants into the church. Just so it 
was with the Jews when the apostle address- 
ed them ; and, therefore, they could no more 
have understood him, as meaning to exclude 
infants, than the members of the Church of 
England would by the use of the same phrase. 

I have been endeavouring to prove that 
both Peter, who spoke, and the Jews, who 
were his hearers, must have understood the 
promise in the text to mean adults and in- 
fants; because such a meaning would be to 
them the most natural and obvious, both 
from their own habit and practice, and from 
its exact resemblance to that promise on 
which their practice was founded, and by 
which their habit was formed. But since 
Mr. Booth and all the Baptists will have it 
to mean no such thing, I shall only say, as 
Mr. Booth does in his answer to Dr. Williams, 
page 274, “Then Dr. Samuel Johnson might 
well say, though a man, accustomed to satis- 
fy himself with the obvious and natural 
meaning of a sentence, does not easily shake 
off his habit, yet a true-bred lawyer never 
contents himself with this sense when there is 
another to be found.” “ My opponent,”’ says 
Mr. Booth to Dr. Williams, “seems to have 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 93 


imbibed the spirit of Dr. Johnson’s true-bred 
lawyer; for he cannot be at all content with 
the obvious and natural meaning, &c.”” Mu- 
tato nomine, §c. This is true of Mr. Booth. 
—I am to prove in the next place, 

II. That this promise must comprehend 
adults and infants wherever it comes, let. it 
come wherever it may. 

The Apostle, in applying this promise, dis- 
tinguishes those to whom it is to apply into 
present and absent. The first class were his 
hearers; the second he describes two ways— 
all that are afar off—as many as the Lord 
our God shall call. To each of these classes, 
viz. those who were present, and those who 
were absent, he applies the promise in the 
text. To those who were present, the pro- 
mise is, to you and to your children ;—to 
those afar off, and the promise is to you and 
to your children ;—to as many as the Lord 
our God shall call, the promise is to you and 
to your children. Let the promise come to 
what persons soever it may, it must come to 
them and to their children; because the pro- 
mise must be the same wherever God shall 
send it. I have already proved that the 
words, you and your children, mean adultsand 
infants; and both being in the promise, it 
must therefore belong to each: to you adults 
and to your infants, who are present; to you 
adults, who are afar off, and to your infants; 
to as many adults as the Lord our God shall 
call,and their infants. That this is true may 


94 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


be proved by considering the essence or na- 
ture of the promise. 

There are two things which enter into the 
essence of a promise: it must contain some 
good—it must be made to some person or 
persons. That these two belong to the es- 
sence of a promise appears by this, that it 
either be taken away, there can be no pro- 
mise—e. g. I will be a God to thee and to 
thy seed; the good in this promise is God 
himself—the persons were Abraham and his 
seed. Ifthe good be taken away, it will then 
be no promise; I will—to thee and to thy 
seed. ‘The case will be the same if the per- 
sons are taken away; I will be a God—in 
either case it is no promise. So when a pro- 
mise is made to different persons, one person 
is as essential to the promise as the other— 
e. g. I will be a God unto thee and to thy 
seed ; the promise is as much to the seed as 
to Abraham, and as much to Abraham as to 
the seed; because both are essential to the 
promise. 

Now the Apostle, expressing the essence 
or nature of the promise in the text, as it re- 
spects the objects, says, “The promise is to 
you and to your children.” Both parts, 
therefore, belong to the promise; it is essen- 
tial to the promise that it be—to you ;—it is 
likewise essential to it that it be to your child- 
ren. And the case being so, we cannot take 
away either part without violating the es- 
sence of the promise. We have no more 
right to say, The promise is to you, but not 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 95 


to your children, than the promise is to yout 
children, but not to you; for as it was the 
design of God that the promise should be to 
both, it was his design that ‘it should be to 
their children as truly as to themselves. And 
“so the promise must be to Peter’s hearers 
and their children—to all that are afar off, 
and to their children—to as many as ‘the. 
Lord our’God shall call, and to their children, 
and the reason is, both enter into the essence 
of the promise. So when God said, “I will 
be a God unto thee and to thy seed,” it would 
apply, in the same form, “to thee and to thy 
seed,’ to every man and every generation 
of men of the offspring of Abraham, as long 
as the promise was in force. 

Mr. Booth objects to this, in vol. 11. p. 355, 
and says, “These words [as many as the 
Lord our God shall call] are, as plainly as 
possible, a limiting clause, and extend a re- 
strictive force to the term, children, as much 
as to the pronoun, you, or to that descriptive 
language, all that are afar off.’ To this I 
reply, that the apostle himself did not make 
use of that limit which Mr. Booth says is so 
plain; for the apostle actually spoke to those 
who, in Mr. Booth’s sense, were already awa- 
kened and called; and then, as plainly as pos- 
sible, distinguishes between them and their 
children. Now if the apostle addressed those 
who were already called, and extended the 
promise beyond them, even to their children, 
then the promise was not limited to the called. 
But this the apostle actually did, as plainly 


96 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


as words could express it; for he spoke to 
those who were pricked in their heart, and 
said, « Men and brethren, what shall we do?”’ 
To these he said, “ The promise is unto you,’’ 
and, instead of: confining it to them only, he 
extends it to their children also; and so passes 
over that limit which Mr. Booth is pleased to 
lay down. And as the apostle extends the 
promise beyond the called, in the first clause, 
we must follow his example, and extend it 
beyond the called in the last clause. Thus the 
promise is to as many as the Lord our God 
shall call, and to their children: and then 
Mr. Booth’s limiting clause will be nothing 
more than a very lame evasion. 
Notwithstanding this, there is some truth 
in Mr. Booth’s idea respecting the limiting 
clause, though he himself, by misapplication, 
has done violence to that truth. That clause 
“to as many as the Lord our God shall call,’’ 
is really a limiting clause, but not in the way 
Mr. Booth supposes. This, like every other 
promise, has two limits, and these two are fix- 
ed by two limiting clauses: one limit deter- 
mines how wide the promise shall extend ; the 
other how far it is to rum—the one is a limit 
of latitude, the other of longitude. The limit 
of latitude extends to parents and children— 
that of longitude reaches down “to as many 
as the Lord our God shall call.” And as 
there is a perfect harmony between these two, 
there is no need to destroy the one in order 
to preserve the other; for both limits being 
settled and fixed, that of latitude which ex- 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 97 


tends to parents and children, must continue 
firm, till, through successive ages, it comes 
down to that of longitude, which reaches to 
as many as the Lord our God shall call; that 
is, as long as God shall continue to call, the 
promise shall pertain to parents and children. 

Mr. Booth therefore, was very right in mak- 
ing this a limiting clause, for so it really is; 
but he was very wrong when, instead of 
preserving both, he set one limit to destroy 
the other. And as it often falls out that 
those, who do violence to the spirit of a text, 
are led to utter some rash expression against 
the letter of it, just so it has fallen out in Mr. 
Booth’s case. He has violated one limit in 
the text, and has so expressed himself as to 
exceed all limits. In vol. ii. p. 354, he has 
said, “ There is nothing said about the pro- 
mise respecting any besides those who were 
then awakened.”” Those who were awaken- 
ed, are distinguished by the pronoun “ you;” 
and it is certain something is said about the 
promise respectingthem. But,says Mr. Booth, 
«There is nothing said about the promise 
respecting auy besides.”” Mr. Booth should 
not have said this with the text before his eyes. 
He should first have erased that clause of it, 
“and to your children,” and not have left it 
stand to contradict him. As something was 
said about the promise respecting those who 
were awakened, and their children both, he 
might as well have denied it respecting the 
awakened, as to deny it respecting their child- 
Ten; but it is often the fate of those who 

9 


98 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


oppose truth, to lose truth and modasiy to 
gether. 

When any dispute happens on a place of 
Scripture, and it cannot be settled from the 
context, the best way is to pass to a similar 
place, and observe (if there be any plain in- 
dications) in what manner that was under- 
stood, and what practice took place upon it. 
That passage, to which the text bears the 
Strongest resemblance, is Genesis xvii. 7. “I 
will establish my covenant—to be a God 
unto thee and to thy seed.”? There is no 
place in Scripture so like the text as this; 
they are both worded in the same way— to 
thee and to thy seed”’—“to you and to your 
children.””? They are both connected with a 
Teligious ordinance. By seed, which is the 
same as children, was meant an infant of 
eight days old and upwards; and because a 
promise is made to the seed, an infant be- 
comes the subject of a religious ordinance. 
Now, if the language of the text be similar, 
and if it be connected with a religious ordi- 
nance, as that was, what better comment can 
be made upon it, than what that passage 
suggests? Why ‘should not the ideas be 
alike, if the language and circumstances be 
so? The reason why a comparing of Scrip- 
ture with Scripture assists the understanding, 
is this: when God uses the same kind of 
language in two places of Scripture, and the 
circumstances are alike, it is plain he means 
to be understood as intending similar things. 
This is so’ sure a rule of interpretation, that 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 99 


we are not afraid of venturing our everlast- 
ing interests upon it: and, by adopting it in 
this instance, the result will be clearly this: 
that the Holy Ghost, by the phrase, “you 
and your children,’’ meant adults and infants; 
that these are placed together in the same 
promise ; and that the promise, thus made to 
adults and infants, is connected with baptism. 
And from hence it may be proved, 

III. That infants are placed in the same 
relation to baptism, as they were of old to 
circumcision. 

Let any one compare the two places to- 
gether, viz. Gen. xvii. 7. 9, 10, and this 
now before us, and he will see that parents 
and children are united, in each promise, in 
the same way—there the promise is, “to 
thee and to thy seed’”’—here it is, “to you 
and to your children ;”’—that the promise, in 
each place, is connected with a religious or- 
dinance. In Genesis it is connected with cir- 
cumcision—in this text with baptism ;—that 
in both places, the ordinance is made to re- 
sult from the promise—the one is set down 
as a reason for the other; Gen. xvii. 9. 
“Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore ;” 
that is, because God had given a promise. 
So here, “ Repent, and let every one of you, 
of yours be baptized, for (gar, because) the 
promise is to you and to yourchildren.”” In- 
fants, therefore, in this passage, are placed in 
the same relation to baptism as they were 
anciently to circumcision. This being so, I 
reason thus: 


100 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


When a positive institution is connected 
with a promise, all, who are contained in 
the promise, have a right to the institution. I 
think any one may be compelled to grant 
this, as it is certainly an undeniable truth; 
for if parents must, therefore, be circumcised 
because they are included in the promise, 
then, as infants are also included in the pro- 
mise, they too must be circumcised. All 
this is evinced by the history of circumcision, 
and is indeed a self-evident case; because if 
a promise give a right to an institution, the in- 
stitution must belong to all who are interested 
in the promise. And, therefore, we may rea- 
son thus: if parents must be baptized be- 
cause the promise belongs to them, then 
must their infants be baptized, because the | 
promise is to them also. This mode of rea- 
soning is the more certain, as it is confirmed, 
beyond all doubt, by the divine procedure ; 
for if you ask, Who were to be circumcised ? 
the reply is, Those to whom the promise was 
made. If you inquire again, to whom was 
the promise made? we answer, To adults 
and infants. Again, if you ask, Who are to 
be baptized? the answer is, Those to whom 
the promise is made. But to whom is it 
made? The apostle says, “To you and to 
your children.””_ Now what proof more di- 
rect can be made or desired for infant bap- 
tism ? 

From these premises the result is plainly 
this: that as infants stand, in this text, in 
the same relation to baptism as they did to 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 101 


circumcision, their right to the one must be 
the same as it was to the other. The case, in 
both instances, stands fairly thus: the pro- 
mise connects itself with the ordinance ; that 
with circumcision—this with baptism. It 
also connects two parties together, infants 
and parents, and unites them both to that 
ordinance with which itself is connected. It 
is by virtue of the union of the promise with 
the ordinance, that those who have an inter- 
est in the one have a right to the other; and 
when two parties, parents and children, are 
interested in the same promise, and that pro- 
mise gives a right to the ordinance, it gives 
the same right to both the parties who are 
interested in it. And hence, as parents and 
children are interested in the promise, the 
right of the children to the ordinance is the 
same as that of parents. 

I produce these three passages only to 
show, that special notice is taken of infants, 
and that they are spoken of agreeably to the 
idea of their church-membership. In Luke 
ix. 47, 48, our Lord proposes them for recep- 
tion in his name, and thereby owns them as 
visibly related to himself. He indicates that 
the reception was to be of the same kind as 

«that which might be claimed by his own dis- 
ciples; and that receiving them as visibly re- 
lated to himself, 7. e. in his name, was show- 
ing a proper respect to him, and to his Father 
who sent him: “whosoever shall receive 
this child in my name, receiveth me; and 
whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him 

g* 


102 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


that sent me,”* &c. In Mark x. 14, our Lord 
explicitly declares what was the ground of 
that reception, by expressing their visible re- 
lation to the church, and so to himself :— 
“Of such is the kingdom of God ;”’ as such 
they were to be brought to him, and no one 
“was to forbid them to come. In Acts ii. 38, 
39, infants are placed in the same relation to 
baptism as they were before to circumcision. 
The apostle unites them with their parents 
in the promise, and connects that promise 
with baptism; thereby copying the divine 
pattern in Genesis xvii. and allotting them 
the same station with respect to baptism, as 
they had before with regard to circumcision. 

In each of these cases infants are spoken 
of agreeably to that constitution of God, by 
which they were admitted to church-mem- 
bership, and to a religious ordinance. And 
this being all that my argument requires, I 
shall proceed to notice one thing more, viz. 

IV. The historical account of the bap- 
tism of households as recorded in the Scrip- 
ture. 

The instances of this kind are three; the 
family of Lydia, Acts xvi. 15; the family of 
the jailer, Acts xvi. 33; and that of Stepha~ 
nas, 1 Cor. i. 16. The case of the jailer and 
his family is thus described: “and he took 
them the same hour of the night, and washed 
their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, 
straightway. And when he had brought 
them into his house, he set meat before 
them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 103 


all his house, eegalliasato panoiki pepi- 
steukos to Theo.’ He rejoiced domestical- 
ly, believing in God; 7. e. he, believing in 
God, rejoiced over his family. Now, as the 
household of the jailer is expressed by the 
phrase, “all his, or all of his,”’ it explains the 
term Oikos, household, or family, which is 
used in the two other instances: so then, to 
baptize a man’s household is to baptize all 
his. This may serve as a pattern of primi- 
tive practice—he and all his were baptized. 
But whether all believed, or were’ capable of 
believing, is not said, no mention being made 
of any one’s faith but his own. And though 
I do not consider this historic account as 
having force enough of itself to evince the 
baptism of infants, yet there are two consid- 
erations which give it weight on that side. 
(1.) Its agreement with that practice, in 
which we are sure infants were included: 1 
mean the practice of Abraham, and the 
Jews, with respect to circumcision. This 
agreement may be considered, 1. In the prin- 
ciple which led to the practice. Circumcision 
was founded on this promise of God, «I will 
—be a God unto thee, and to thy seed.” 
Baptism proceeds on this, that the promise 
is to you and to your children; and in this 
they are both alike. 2. In the practice itself. 
When Abraham received circumcision, his 
household were circumcised with him; so 
when the jailer was baptized, all his were 
baptized likewise. Now, when we discern 
two cases alike in principle and practice, and 


104 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


are sure that infants were included in the one, 
we then very naturally are led to conclude, 
that infants must be intended in the other. 

(2.) Its accordance with the hypothesis 
of infant baptism. Such accounts as these 
have a favourable aspect on the sentiments 
of Pedobaptists; because on their plan, pro- 
vided they were placed in the same circum- 
stances as the apostles were, whose lot it 
was to preach the gospel where Christ had 
not been named; cases of a like nature would 
very frequently occur. Whereas, on the 
plan of the Baptists, if placed in similar cir- 
cumstances, though we might hear of various 
persons baptized on a profession of faith; we 
should not expect to hear of the baptizing of 
households; or, that any man, and all his, 
were baptized straightway. And indeed, 
the very idea of baptizing households, and 
of a man, and all his, being baptized at the 
same time, does so naturally fall in with the 
views of Pzdobaptists, that Iam inclined to 
think it passes with the common people, in- 
stead of a hundred arguments. For though 
they do not reason by mood and figure, nei- 
ther do they confine themselves to logical 
accuracy, in any form; yet they have logic 
enough to see, that. the baptizing of a man, 
and all his, and likewise of this and the other 
household, is by no means agreeable to the 
plan, and that it has no resemblance to the 
practice of the Baptists. 

It is in this way, I consider these accounts 
of baptizing as having weight in the present 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 105 


inguiry. Here are facts recorded, relative to 
baptizing ;.I take these facts, and compare 
them with the proceedings of different bap- 
tizers; and I find they will not agree to one 
class, but very well with the other: I, there- 
fore, am led to conclude, that that class of 
baptizers agree best to the primitive practice, 
to whom these facts wil] best agree. For, as 
the practice of the apostles has no affinity 
with that of the Baptists, it is very reason- 
able to infer, that their views of the subject 
could not be the same. 

This being the last corroborating argument 
I mean to bring, I will collect the force of the 
whole into one view. The whole defence of 
infants rests on two arguments ;—1. That God 
did constitute in his church the membership 
of infants, and admitted them to it by a re- 
ligious ordinance. 2. That the right of in- 
fants to church-membership was never taken 
away : the consequence of which is, that their 
right to membership continues to the present 
moment. The first of these arguments is 
granted by the Baptists themselves. The 
other I have evinced from five topics: 1. 
From God’s dispensation towards the Gen- 
tiles, in forming them into a church state. 2. 
That God never did, by any law, take away 
that right which had been before granted to 
infants. 3. That none of the Jews had any 
apprehension of the rejection of infants, which 
they must have had, if infants had been re- 
jected. 4. That Jesus Christ spake of them 
as visibly belonging to the church, and to 
himself, as the Head of the church: and that 


106 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE 


the apostle Peter placed them in the same 
relation to baptism, as they had been before 
to circumcision. 5. That the apostle Paul, 
in baptizing whole families, acted agreeably 
to, and so evinced the validity of, all the pre- 
ceding arguments, 

The evident result of the whole is, that 
infants, according to divine appointment, have 
a right to church-membership, to the present 
hour. Then, the only question that remains, 
and by answering of which, I shall be brought 
to the close of the inquiry, is this: have in- 
fants (any infants, for I take them indefinite- 
ly) any right to Christian baptism? To this 
I reply, 1. That those persons who have a 
right to be members, should certainly be ad- 
_ mitted to membership; 7. e. solemnly recog- 
nized. And the reason is, because every one 
should have his right. 2. If persons, who 
have a right to be members, should be re- 
ceived to membership; then they are to be 
received, either without baptism, or with it. 
I suppose none will say, they are to be re- 
ceived without baptism; for then, if one may 
be so received, so may all, and thus baptism 
will be excluded. I expect no opposition 
from a Baptist in this place. For if the right 
of infants to membership be once evinced, 
the opposition of a Baptist is over. And 
therefore, if he be able to do any thing in this 
controversy, it must be done before it comes 
to this. On the other hand, if no person is 
to be received to membership without bap- 
tism ; then every one who should be received, 
must of necessity be baptized. And so the 


OF INFANT BAPTISM. 107 


conclusion of the whole will be this: since in- 
fants, therefore, have a right to membership, 
and all who have such right must be received 
as members, and none should be received with- 
out being baptized; then it follows, that as in- 
fants have a right to be received, they must 
also have a right to be baptized; because 
they cannot be received without baptism. 


—e— 


CHAPTER III. 


Havine advanced what I judged essential 
on both sides, I will now, agreeably to my 
design, give the reader a scheme of the whole. 
By this scheme the reader will be able to 
discover what is common to both sides, and 
what is the force of each. It was in 
this way, the subject presented itself to my 
mind, when I was led a second time to take 
it under consideration. And I persuade my- 
self, that, by adopting this method, the reader 
will be more capable of judging, in this con- 
troverted question, which side of the two is 
the stronger, and consequently which is the 
true one. I will place the whole on one 
page, that the reader may have it at once 
under hiseye. I shall place those Scriptures, 
that weigh equal on both sides, at the top of 
the page; and the arguments against infant 
baptism in one column, and those for their 
baptism in the other. I do this, because I 
know of no method more fair, or more cal- 
culated to lead to the truth as it is in Jesus. 


108 sCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


A Scheme of the Controversy on Baptism. 


I. Those places of Scripture which are common to both 
sides, viz. Baptists and Padobaptists. Matt iii. 6. “And 
were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Mark 
xvi. 16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” 
Acts ii. 41. ‘Then they that gladly received his word, were 
baptized.” Acts viii. 27. “ in Philip said, If thou believest 
with all thine heart, thou mayest,” &e. ' 

N. B. These places, and others of the same kind, as they 
prove the baptism of an adult to be right, are expressive of the 
sentiment of Baplists and Padobaptists, with respect to an 
adult subject: For both think it right to baptize an adult. And 
as they prove equally on both aides, they cannot be urged by 
either party against the other. 

Those arguments which are peculiar to each, com- 

ared. : 
i N. B. The question is not of adults ; in this both are agreed : 
« But, Are infants to be baptized ?” 


ARGUMENTS AGAINST 
INFANT BAPTISM. 


1 Whoever has a 
right to a positive or- 
dinance must be ex- 
pressly mentioned as 
having that right; but 


infants are not so 
mentioned, with re- 
spect to baptism: 


Therefore infants are 
not to be baptized. 

2. The Scriptures 
require faith and re- 
pentance in order to 
baptism; but infants 
have not faith or re- 
pentance: Therefore 
infants are not proper 
subjects of baptism. 


ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 


1 God has constituted in_ his 
church the membership of infants, 
and admitted them to it by a re- 
ligious rite. 

2. The church-membership of 
infants was never set aside by God 
or man; and consequently con- 
tinues in force to the present day. . 

N B. The Baptists admit the first. 
The other is, by a variety of evidence, 
clearly pm 

Coroll.— As God has constituted 
infants church members, they should 
be received to membership, because 
God has constituted it. 

Dilemma.—Since infants must be 
received to membership, they must be 
received without baptism, or with it: 
But none must be received without 
baptism; and, therefore, as infants 
must be received, they must of neces- 
sity be baptized. 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 109 


I shall now only make a few remarks on 
this scheme of the controversy, and so con- 
clude this part of the subject. 

1. At the top of the page, I have cited some 
passages of Scripture, which support the sen- 
timent of both parties, that is, the propriety 
of baptizing an adult professing faith, &c. 
These, and such like Scriptures, which for 
want of room I have not set down, prove as 
much on one side as on the other; and, there- 
fore, I have said they are common to both 
parties. My design in placing them at the 
head of the scheme, is to detect an error in- 
cident to Baptists in general; namely, a sup- 
position that such texts prove only on thei 
side, and against the sentiments of Pedo- 
baptists. I have observed this error, in 
every Baptist with whom I have conversed, 
both before and since my present sentiments 
have been known. I once asked a worthy 
Baptist minister, what he thought were the 
strongest arguments against Padobaptists? 
He immediately had recourse to such pas- 
sages as are set down in the scheme. I told 
him, that these were so far from being the 
strongest, that they were no arguments at all 
against Peedobaptists; but rather proved on 
their side, in common with Baptists. My 
friend wondering at this, I observed, that 
Pedobaptists as well as Baptists held adult 
baptism ; and as these passages only prove 
adult baptism, they prove nothing more than 
what is held by both. When I had made 
the matter sufficiently plain, our conversation 

10 


= 


110 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


on this subject ended. He, however, called 
on me the next day, and said, “I am really 
surprised at what you said yesterday, and 
could hardly sleep for thinking of it.” 

The error I am guarding against, is that 
of claiming an exclusive right to those 
Scriptures, which do not exclusively belong 
to them. It is by means of this common 
error, that the Baptist cause is maintained ; 
for it gives it the appearance of strength, 
when in reality ithas none. Mr. Booth shall 
come forward as an example, since he is as 
deeply tinctured with this error as any of his 
brethren. In vol. ii. p. 415, he says, “ That 
Baptists have no need of subterfuge to evade 
the force of any argument formed upon it, 
[1 Cor. vii. 14,] is plain, I humbly conceive, 
from the preceding reflections. No, while 
they have both precept and example on their 
side,” &c.—Both precept and example on 
their side! This looks very formidable in- 
deed: but let us examine the phrase. Pray, 
Mr. Booth, what do you mean by the Bap- 
tists’ side? Do you mean adult baptism? If 
you mean this, it is only passing a deception 
upon the reader; for you must know that 
Pedobaptists have no dispute with you upon 
that subject. You certainly know that they 
both hold and practise adult baptism as well 
as you, and that what you call your side is 
no more yours than it is theirs. But do you 
mean the denial of infant baptism? This you 
should mean, when you distinguish your side 
from theirs ; for herein it is, that you and Pe- 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 111 


dobaptists take different sides, seeing they 
affirm, and you deny, that infants are fit sub- 
jects of baptism. If so, then you affirm that 
Baptists have both precept and example for 
the denial of infant baptism, which is indeed 
properly your side. No, sir, very far from it; 
you have neither precept nor example, on 
your side, in all the word of God. You have 
nothing in the world on your side, as you 
are pleased to call it, but two poor sophisms, 
z. e. a pair of bad, very bad arguments, which 
I have placed together in one column. 

But the truth is, when you speak in so 
lofty a tone of the Baptists’ side, as having 
both precept and example, you only mean 
that adult baptism has these. Pray, sir, do 
you and Pedobaptists take opposite sides on 
the article of adult baptism? If not, why is 
it your side so peculiarly? You have said 
in this quotation, that the Baptists have no 
need of subterfuge. Good sir, what is a sub- 
terfuge? Is itan evasion—a deception? Why 
do you call that your side exclusively, which 
is no more your side than it is the side of the 
Pedobaptists? Was it because your own 
real side, the denial of infant baptism, was 
weak? And did you wish by a dexterous 
shift, to make it pass for strong? Pray, Mr. 
Booth, is not this a subterfuge? Itis very extra- 
ordinary that you should fly to a subterfuge, 
and in that very place too, where you say 
the Baptists do not need any. And whereas 
most disputants make use of subterfuges only 
when they actually need them, it is extraor- 


112 sCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


dinary that you should make use of a subter- 
fuge, when, as you yourself say, there is in 
reality no need of any such thing. 

By this the reader may perceive how ne- 
cessary it is to keep these things clear in his 
own mind, if he wishes to form a judgment 
on this subject according to truth; for though 
the Baptist side has in reality no strength at 
all, yet it acquires the appearance of it from 
the misrepresentation which I have endea- 
voured to expose. I have, therefore, been 
the more desirous of placing this matter in a 
fair light, because, though frequently called 
to speak on the subject, I was not for some 
years aware of the deception. Let the reader 
keep in view those Scriptures at the top of 
the scheme, which weigh equally on both 
sides, while I pass to the two columns, where 
the arguments of both are placed in opposi- 
tion to each other; and by comparing these, 
we shall see which is the stronger, and, there- 
fore, which is the true side of the question. 

2. If the reader will turn to the scheme, 
he will see, on the left column, what is the 
real strength of the Baptist side, and what 
arguments they produce against the baptism 
of infants. I have there set down two argu- 
ments which are urged by Baptists: the one 
taken from a want of express precept or ex- 
ample to baptize infants; the other from their 
want of capacity to believe and repent, &c. 
These two are the only arguments they can 
produce; and if they are not good, they have 
nothing good to urge. With respect to the 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 113 


first, that there is no express command or 
example for baptizing infants, the same is 
true respecting female communion; and so 
this argument, if it were good, would have a 
double effect: it would exclude infants from 
baptism, and females from the Lord’s supper, 
And then the Baptists would be right in re- 
fusing to baptize infants; but, at the same 
time, they would be wrong in admitting fe- 
males to the Lord’s supper; but, on the con- 
trary, if women have a right to the Lord’s 
table, though there be no express law or ex- 
ample for their admission, then the argument 
is good for nothing. I shall say more upon 
this, when I come to examine Mr. Booth’s 
defence of female communion. 

As to the other argument, I mean that 
taken from the incapacity of infants to be- 
lieve and repent, it is nothing more than a 
sophism. I have discovered its fallacy by 
applying it to different cases; and in the 
Same way that it proved against infant bap- 
tism, it would have proved against infant cir- 
cumcision—against the baptism of Christ— 
against the temporal subsistence of infants— 
and, lastly, against their eternal salvation. I 
have likewise shown wherein its fallacy con- 
sisted, viz. in bringing more into the conclu- 
sion than was in the premises: all this the 
reader may observe by recurring to the place 
where it is examined. The consequence is 
that the Baptists have nothing to place 
against infant baptism, but two unsound, 
sophistical, deceitful arguments, This is the. 

10* 


114 scHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


sum total of the Baptist side; but if any. 
Baptist think he is able either to maintain 
these two arguments, or to produce any thing 
better, I seriously invite him to the task. 

3. On the opposite column I have placed 
the arguments for infant baptism. Their or- 
der is the most simple, and the whole con- 
sists of three parts: 1. That God formed a 
church on earth, and constituted infants 
members of that church :—2. That the mem- 
bership of infants, from that time to this, has 


never been set aside by any order of God; _ 


consequently it still remains :—3, That as in- 
fants have a divine right to membership, 
they must be received as members; and as 
they must not be received without being 
baptized, they must be baptized in order to 
be received. 

These are the arguments in one column, 
which are to be compared with those two on 
the Baptist side in the other; and by com- 
paring them together, the reader may see on 
which side the evidence preponderates, and 
consequently on which side the truth actu- 
ally lies. There are three parts on the right 
column, which link into each other, and form 
a strong chain of evidence, to be placed'in 
opposition to two false sophistical arguments, 
which constitute the whole force on the Bap- 
tist side; that is, there is something to be 
placed against nothing—substantial evidence 
against a pair of sophisms: and this is to be 
done, that the reader may see which has the 
stronger side, and which the true. As far as 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 115 


concerns myself, I only say, I have, after 
many supplications for the best teaching, ex- 
amined, compared, and decided, and am well 
satisfied with the decision: the reader, if he 
be a man fearing God, will go and do like- 
wise. So much for the comparison; a few 
words on the evidence, by itself, will finish 
this part of the business, 

The nature of this proof, on the side of in- 
fants, is such, that Baptists can only attack 
it in one part. If I affirm, as in the first 
part, that God did constitute infants members 
of his church, the Baptists grant they were 
once church members. If I affirm, as in the 
third, that every one who has a right to be a 
church member, has a right to be baptized, 
they are compelled to grant that too. So 
there remains but one point on which a Bap- 
tist can form an attack, and that is the second 
part, wherein I say, that the church-mem- 
bership of infants having been once an insti- 
tution of God, was never set aside either 
by God immediately, or by any man acting 
under the authority of God. This is the 
point then that decides the question. I will 
spend a few words in vindicating this turn- 
ing point against the argumentum ad homi- 
nem made use of by Mr. Booth. 

In support of this I have argued from five 
topics: God’s method of acting in bringing 
the Gentiles into a church state; there never 
was a law of God to set their membership 
aside; the Jews, in Christ’s time, had no ap- 
prehension of any such thing; Christ spoke 


116 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


of infants as actually belonging to the church, 
and his apostle placed them inthe same rela- 
tion to baptism as they had been in to 
circumcision; and Paul, in conformity to 
this scheme, baptized families, particularly 
the jailer, and all his, straightway. Each of 
these is already set forth, and evineed in its 
proper place. 

But what do the Baptists place against 
this evidence? Mr. Booth, in answering Dr. 
Williams on this subject, does neither pro- 
duce one Scripture to prove that ihe church- 
membership of infants, which he grants to 
have existed once, was ever set aside; nor 
does he answer those Scriptures which the 
Doctor had alleged to evince the continuance 
of their membership. What then does Mr. 
Booth do? Whoever will be at the pains to 
read his books, will find his mode of reason- 
ing to be of this kind. He instances a 
variety of things belonging to the Jewish 
church, such as its being national—its priest- 
hood—its tithes—its various purifications— 
its holy places, holy garments, &e.; and then 
argues most erroneously, that as these things 
are done away, the membership of infants 
must be done away too. This, I say, is the 
mode of his arguing, and indeed the only ar- 
gument he brings, as may be seen by any 
one who reads his works with care. Now 
this reasoning of his involves a very egre- 
gious absurdity, and a very mateo) error in 
point of chronology. 

I. A very egregious absurdity. Mr. Booth 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 117 


seems to consider the various rites, &c. of 
the Jewish church as being so incorporated 
and interwoven with the members of that 
church, that the rites and they become essen- 
tially the same; and then, if the rites be 
taken away, he fancies that the very essence 
of the church is so destroyed or altered, that 
infant membership is gone of course. Let 
any one weigh Mr. Booth’s reasoning in vol. ii. 
p- 37, and understand him on any other than 
this' absurd principle if he can. “ An apos- 
tle,’ says he, “has taught us, that the an- 
cient priesthood being changed, there is made 
of necessity a change also in the law. ‘That 
is, as Dr. Owen explains it, the whole law of 
commandments contained in ordinances, or 
the whole law of Moses, so far as it wasa 
rule of worship and obedience unto the 
ehurch; for that law it is, that followeth the 
fates of the priesthood.”? Very well. That 
law was changed, which was a rule of wor- 
ship and obedience to the church; but what 
has this to do with changing the church? Is 
a church changed, because the rule, which 
directed its worship, is changed? I wonder 
much why Dr. Owen is here introduced, un- 
less it be to pass off an absurdity under the 
sanction of a great name; as nothing can be 
more contrary to what Mr. Booth is going to 
say, than this quotation from the Doctor. 
Now see Mr. Booth’s curious reasoning. 
“ We may therefore adopt the sacred writer’s 
principle of reasoning, and say, the constitution 
of the visible church being manifestly and 


\ 


118 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


essentially altered, the law, relating to quali- 
fications for communion in it, must of neces- 
sity be changed. Consequently, no valid in- 
ference can be drawn from the membership 
of infants, under the former dispensation, to 
a similarity of external privilege under the 
new covenant.” Now in what way could 
the constitution of the church be essentially 
altered by a change in the law of ordinances, 
unless upon that absurd idea, that the ordi- 
nances and members were so compounded 
and incorporated with each other, as to form, 
in this incorporated state, the very essence of 
the church ? 

“One thing we may remark in this quota- 
tion, which is, that Mr. Booth grants infants to 
have been church members under the former 
dispensation. This is granting my first argu- 
ment for infant baptism; there is only one 
more to be maintained, wz. That the mem- 
bership of infants has never been annulled; 
and this being evinced, the opposition of a 
Baptist is at an end, sinee he cannot by any 
means deny the conclusion. -And now the 
whole debate is brought into this narrow 
limit—Has the church membership of in- 
fants at any time been set aside, or has it 
not? I have advanced five arguments to 
prove it never has been set aside. Mr. Booth 
says it has. If you ask him to prove it, he 
tells you, “the constitution of the visible 
church is manifestly and essentially altered.” 
If you ask him how he proves this essential 
alteration? he tells you, that tithes, and puri- 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 119 


fications, and priesthood, and other things of 
this kind belonging to the Mosaic code, are 
changed or taken away; and then most ab- 
surdly infers, that infant membership is taken 

- away too: as if a member of a church and a 
Mosaic rite had been the same; as if infant 
membership, which was long before Moses, 
had been nothing more than a Mosaic rite. 
But let us observe how grandly he reasons 
down infant membership. 

«“ We may therefore,” says he, “ adopt the 
sacred writer’s principle of reasoning, and 
say.””—I have been at some pains to inform 
myself respecting this sentence—whether Mr. 
Booth meant to imitate the apostle’s phrase- 
ology, or to reason after the same method, or 
to reason from the apostle’s datum or princi- 
ple, viz. “the priesthood being changed.” I 
was at length inclined to view the latter as 
his meaning ; because it seemed too trivial to 
tell the reader in that pompous way, “ We 
may adopt the sacred writer’s principle of 
reasoning,”’ when nothing more was meant 
but imitation of phraseology. For the same 
reason I thought he could not mean an imi- 
tation of the apostle’s method ; for that would 
be only saying, he should lay down a datum 
as the apostle had done, and then draw an 
inference as the apostle did. All this is very 
well, and secundum artem; but then he 
might as well have told the reader, that he 
would adopt Aristotle’s principle of reason- 
ing, as the sacred writer’s. For if Mr. Booth 
only meant that he would lay down a datum 


120 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


or principle to begin with, and then proceed 
to infer, it can signify nothing to any man 
living, unless his datum be a true one. And 
if this be-all, he need not have introduced it 
~ with such pomp as the “sacred writer’s prin-- 
ciple of reasoning ;’’ for what other would 
any person adopt, unless he were an idiot? 
This, as well as the other, being too trifling to 
be Mr. Booth’s meaning, I therefore concluded 
he meant to adopt the apostle’s datum, viz. 
“The priesthood. being changed,” and from 
thence to draw an inference against infants. 
I was the more inclined to think he intended 
this, since he had just cited the apostle’s 
words, and Dr. Owen’s explanation of them ; 
and this being done, he immediately proceeds 
to adopt. 

The apostle does indeed say, “ The priest- 
hood being changed, there is made of neces- 
sity a change also of the law.”? The priest- 
hood implied servants of the church to min- 
ister in holy things; the law was a com- 
mandment contained in ordinances, and was, 
as Dr. Owen said,a rule of worship and 
obedience to the church. The priests who 
were to minister, and the law, which was to 
regulate, were both changed: the law was 
changed in consequence of a change in the 
priesthood. Well, and what then? Why, 
according to Mr. Booth the argument will run 
thus: the priests were changed, and the rule 
of worship was changed, therefore the church 
was essentially altered, therefore infants were 
excluded. Is not this a good inference, The 


ON INFANT BAPTISM 121 


priests were changed, therefore infants were 
excommunicated? It might have been so, if 
the priests had all been infants; but even 
then it would only have concluded against 
- infant priests. Every argument Mr. Booth 
has brought against the continuance of infant 
church-membership is of the same kind— 
tithes, purifications, holy places, &c. and of 
these the reader may take which he pleases, 
and infer accordingly. ~ Tithes are abroga- 
ted, therefore infants are excluded. Purifica- 
tions are set aside, therefore infants are shut 
out. Holy places, &c. are no more, therefore 
—not so fast—If Mr. Booth is to make good 
his conclusion against the perpetuity of infant 
membership from that datum of the apostle, 
“the priesthood being changed,’ let him 
have the liberty of wording his own argu- 
ment—I have no objection to this—let him 
proceed. 

“The constitution of the visible church 
being essentially altered’?—Stop—pray, sir, 
is this the apostle’s principle of reasoning? 
Do you, by that sentence, mean the same as 
is expressed by the apostle, “ The priesthood 
being changed?”’ If you do, I will not con- 
tend for a word.—Proceed—“ The constitu- 
tion of the visible church [that is, the priest- 
hood] being essentially altered or changed, 
the law, relating to qualifications for com- 
munion in it, [that is, in the priesthood] must 
of necessity be changed: consequently [be- 
cause the priesthood is changed] no valid in- 
ference can be drawn from the membership 

Il 


122 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


of infants [that is,in the priesthood] under 
the former dispensation, to a similarity of ex- 
ternal privilege under the new covenant.” 
Bene conclusum est a dato scriptoris sacri! 
And an excellent argument it is against all 
those who mean to bring up their infants to 
be Jewish priests. 

Ah, aliquis error latet! Mr. Booth did not 
mean to conclude so: he is disputing against 
infant baptism, and not against infant priest- 
hood. Very well; but then he must have a 
very different datum. He is certainly at 
liberty to dispute and conclude as he pleases, 
only let him do it fairly. I certainly supposed- 
he was reasoning from the sacred writer’s 
principle—« The priesthood being changed;”’ 
he had just quoted it, and set Dr. Owen to 
explain it, and said,“ We may adopt it:’ 
But that principle, as to infants, only con- 
cludes against an infant priesthood, which 
was not the thing he intended. 

Priests, we said, were servants to minister 
to the church in holy things; and if so, there 
is a wide difference between the priesthood 
being changed, and the constitution of the 
visible church (namely, the members who 
constitute it) being essentially altered. The 
same may be said of all the instances men- 
tioned by Mr. Booth; these might all be 
changed or abrogated, and yet no essential al- 
teration take place in the church, that is, in the 
members of it. Iam very suspicious that Mr. 
Booth to make out a better conclusion, meant 
to pass it upon the reader, that the apostle’s ex 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 123 


pression, “the priesthood being changed,” 
and that of his, “the constitution of the vi- 
sible church being essentially altered,’ were 
of the same import, and conveyed precisely 
the same idea. If this was really his design, 
it is not much to his honour; it must proceed 
from a greater love to hypothesis than to 
truth, or, as I rather think, it arose from that 
absurd idea which he seems to entertain— 
that the priesthood, rites, and ordinances, 
which were given to the church, were essen- 
tially the same with that church to which 
they were given. And it is on this absurd 
principle that his opposition to the continu- 
ance of infant membership is carried on: he 
turns the priesthood into a church, and every 
institution into an infant,and then contemplates 
the change of the one, and the removal of the 
other. In the change of priesthood he sees 
nothing but an essential change in the church, 
and fancies the removal of institutions to be the 
removal of infants. And now he will adopt 
the principle of the sacred writer :— the 
priesthood is changed, therefore the church 
is essentially altered ; this institution is taken 
away, there goes an infant; that institution is 
abrogated, there goes another infant; and 
now all the institutions are gone, and now all 
the infants are gone; and then, says he, “no 
valid inference can be drawn from the mem 
bership of infants under the former dispensa- 
tion, to a similarity of external privilege 
under the new covenant.”—We will now 


124 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


leave Mr. Booth in possession of his absurdity, 
and take notice of, 

IJ. A very material error in point of chro- 
nology. With respect to chronology, most 
persons know, that from the time of Abraham 
to that of instituting the priesthood, the Mo- 
saic rites, &c. we may reckon about four 
hundred years. During this space of time, 
the church, in which infants were members, 
was not national ; it had no levitical priest- 
hood, there was no institution of tithes, nor 
was the Mosiac code of rites yet formed. All 
we know of the church is, that its members’ 
consisted of adults and infants, who were in- 
itiated by the same rite; that sacrifices were 
offered ; and, it is probable, that the father of 
the family, or some respectable person, did 
officiate in their assemblies as a priest. Here 
is a congregational church, a simple worship, 
and some creditable officiating priest. 

If we carry our views forward, we shall 
see that church, which at first was congrega- 
tional, become a national church; the wor- 
ship that was once simple, under the direction 
of the Mosiac code; and instead of a priest 
chosen by the people, a regular priesthood is 
ordained of God. Now, whether we view 
the congregational or national form, the sim- 
ple or complex worship, the irregular or re- 
gular priesthood, we see no alteration in the 
constitution of the church, much less an es- 
sential one, as it respected the members of 
which it was composed. If therefore, the 
passing from congregational to national, from 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 125 


a simple to a complex worship, from an ir- 
regular to a regular priesthood, produced no 
essential alteration in the church members, 
then should all this be reversed, should there 
be a change from national to congregational, 
from a complex to a simple worship, from a 
regular to an irregular priesthood, every 
man in his senses must see that this can no 
more alter the essence of the church, than 
the other did. 

All this is plain enough to any man except 
Mr. Booth ; for, according to his mode of rea- 
soning, there must have been, from the be- 
ginning, I know not how many essential al- 
terations in the constitution of the visible 
church: for if, as he will have it,a change 
of priesthood made one essential change, 
then the institution of the same priesthood 
must have made another—so there were two 
changes. And, not to say any thing of the 
changes from Adam to Abraham, what be- 
came of the essence of the church when the 
functions of this priesthood, during the cap- 
tivity, were suspended? For if the changing 
of priesthood did essentially alter the church, 
the institution of priesthood must have done 
the same ; and then its suspension during the 
captivity, and its restoration at the close of 
it, must have made two more; because, ac- 
cording to Mr. Booth’s view of things,a change 
of priesthood essentially alters the church. 

I observe that Mr. Booth in opposing the 
continuance of infant membership, takes care 
not to go too far ‘back; the period of Mosaic 

it 


126 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


rites suits him best, and there he fixes; for 
this era, as he supposes, furnishes him with 
weapons which he does not sparingly use, es- 
pecially against a dissenting minister. Here 
he finds not only infant membership, but a 
national church, a priesthood, tithes, and in- 
stitutions of various kinds. Now, says Mr. 
Booth when reasoning with a dissenting min- 
ister, “If you will plead for the continuance 
of infant membership, which I grant to have 
existed, you must alsoadmit anational church ; 
you must call yourself a priest, and wear holy 
garments, and turn your communion-table in- 
to an altar, and demand tithes, and call your 
meeting a holy place.”? But why all this? 
Because, says he, ‘all these things belonged 
to the same dispensation as infant member- 
ship did; and so, if you take one, you must 
even take all, and then you will have a tole- 
rable body of Judaism. 

Now, before we rob Mr. Booth of this mis- 
erable weapon, I would just observe, that 
this argument of his, which is the only one 
he has got, is what is called argwmentum ad 
hominem ; and, though often used, it is one 
of the weakest that can be adopted. It is 
calculated to make an impression on some 
men, whose sentiments may be of a peculiar 
cast; but if the same be turned against others 
who are of a different sentiment, it is of no 
force at all:—e. g. Mr. Booth’s argument has 
the appearance of strength, if used against a 
dissenting minister; because he may reject 
the idea of a national church, priesthood, the- 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 127 


right of tithes, &c.; but if the same be urged 
against a clergyman of the establishment 
who admits these, all its force is gone—it is 
even good for nothing. This argument de- 
rives all its force from the sentiments of the 
person against whom it is used; it may be 
very strong against one man, and very weak 
against another ; it will serve to support error 
as well as truth; and, therefore, when it isa 
solitary argument, no dependence whatever 
can be placed upon it. Ido not mean to dis- 
card the use of it in all cases—] grant it may 
answer a good purpose, if prudently man- 
aged; but this I say, it should never be a 
man’s only argument; for that man’s cause 
must be miserably poor indeed, which de- 
pends on one solitary argument, that will 
either protect truth or falsehood. Just such 
is the case of Mr. Booth in opposing the con- 
unuance of infant membership; and I wish 
him to consider seriously, whether such kind 
of. reasoning is fit to stand against a plan of 
God. 

Now, weak as this argument is in itself, 
there is one thing in Mr. Booth’s case, which 
makes it still worse; he is indebted for the 
use of it to a very capital absurdity. As he 
is not able to prove’ an essential alteration in 
the constitution of the church, he supposes, 
or seems to suppose, that members and reli- 
gious institutions do belong to, and equally 
constitute the essence of the church of God; 
for what else but such an absurd idea could 
induce him to aflirm, that the church was 


128 sCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


essentially altered, and so infants cut off. 
merely. because the institutions of thé church 
were abrogated? Now, though this argu- 
ment of his is so exceedingly weak, and the 
principle on which it is built so very absurd, 
that no one need be under any apprehension, 
should it remain quietly in his possession, ] 
mean, notwithstanding, to take the liberty of 
changing his place, and fixing him in that 
station, where he shall feel himself totally 
deprived of its assistance. 

Mr. Booth must certainly know that the 
national form of the church, the institution of 
priesthood, tithes, and other Mosaic ordinan- 
ces, were of a much later date than infant 
church-membership. I take the liberty, there- 
fore, of changing Mr. Booth’s standing, and 
putting him as far back as the patriarchal age, 
the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
And now having placed Mr. Booth among 
the patriarchs, I wish him to take a view of 
their ecclesiastical affairs, and to indulge me 
at the same time with a little free conversa- 
tion on that subject. 

Now, sir, what do you perceive in this age 
of the church? Here you see the venerable 
patriarchs, obedient to the divine order, ad- 
mitting infants to church-membership. But 
on the other hand, you see here no national 
church, no instituted priesthood, no law of 
tithes, nor indeed any Mosaic rites. Your 
favourite argument against the continuance 
of infant. membership, derived from a na- 
tional church, the levitical priesthood, tithes, 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 129 


&e, is, by falling back about the space of 
three hundred years, fairly and irrecoverably 
Jost. You had formed so close a connec- 
tion between infant membership, a national 
church, a priesthood, tithes, and Mosaic rites; 

,as if they all rose into existence at the same 
time, and were all to expire together. But 
here they stand entirely apart; infant mem- 
bership is in no alliance with a national 
church, is totally unconnected with levitical 
priesthood, and has nothing at all to do with 
Mosaic institutions. The close union you fan- 
cied existed between these does here vanish 
away. And now, sir, what will you do 

with a dissenting minister in this case? Your 
argumentum ad hominem, the only argu- 
ment you had, is lost. 

Lost, did I say ?—Nay, now I think of it, 
it is not lost neither. Oh no! so far from it, 
that I believe I can put you in a way where- 
by you may manage your matters to far great- 
er advantage. For though, by putting you 
back to the patriarchal age, I deprive you of 
those topics with which you have been able 
to combat a dissenting minister, viz. a na- 
tional church, an instituted priesthood, Mosaic 
rites, &c.; yet all is not lost: you will here 
find topics, which, if managed with dexterity, 
will make no inconsiderable impression on a 
clergyman of the establishment. You observe 
sir, that infant membership has nothing to do 
with a national church, priesthood, tithes, &c.; 
and then, should any clergyman of the estab- 
lishment rise to defend the continuance of in- 


130 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY 


fant membership, you may say to him, My 
good sir, if you insist upon infant church- 
membership now, which I myself grant to 
have existed in the times of Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob; pray observe the consequence ; 
you must relinquish the idea of a national 
church, you must cease to call yourself a 
priest, you must lay aside your holy gar- 
ments, and finally, you must give up all your 
tithes. For, if you will be a patriarchal pro- 
fessor in infant membership, you must be so 
in every thing else. If you will conform to 
the patriarchs in one particular; in the name 
of consistency and common honesty, I ask, 
why are you not a conformist in every par- 
ticular ? 

You see, Mr. Booth, that this is arngwmen- 
tum ad hominem against a clergyman of the 
establishment with a witness, and wil] make 
him feel according to its importance ; for cer- 
tainly it will bring him into as great a difficul- 
ty as your other argument of the same kind 
brought Dr. Williams. Well, what a happy in- 
vention! Here is an expedient, by which you 
will be able to annoy on either hand. Be- 
fore, when you fixed your station among the 
Mosaic rites, you could only act with advan- 
tage against a non-conformist; but now, if 
you only step back three hundred years, you 
may employ your artillery as successfully 
against an antagonist in the establishment. 
And thus by stepping backward or forward, 
according to the cast of your adversary, which 
is a thing easily done, you will have it in 


ON INFANT BAPTISM. 131 


your power to urge something against all 
comers. This is one of the best inventions 
in the world for your cause; for as you stand 
forth as a great disputant against infant mem- 
bership, it is probable you will meet with an- 
tagonists of all kinds. This expedient—like 
the two edges of a sword, or the two horns 
of a dilemma—will enable you to meet an 
adversary at all points. Should you attack 
a dissenting minister, be sure you fix upon 
Mosaic rites; but if a clergyman of the estab- 
lishment should prove an antagonist, you 
know your cue; quit that station, and fall 
back to the patriarchal age; and so, by hu- 
mouring the business, you will be a match 
for both. Excuse my officiousness in sug- 
gesting any thing, especially to you, who are 
so well versed in all the turns of disputation ; 
I only do it, because this thought seemed to 
escape you. 

Candid reader, I have now done with this — 
part of the subject, and have only to say, that 
of all the miserable oppositions that were ever 
set up against an ordinance of God, I mean 
infant membership in its perpetuity, I think 
there never was a more miserable opposition 
than this. The Baptists grant infant church- 
membership to have existed once. I have 
affirmed that it still exists; and this being 
proved, the opposition of a Baptist is at an 
end. I have argued from five different topics, 
in proof of the perpetuity of infant member- 
ship. Mr. Booth who denies this, urges 
against it one solitary argument; and that 


132 SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY, ETC. 


even the weakest of all arguments, the argzu- 
mentum ad hominem ; and this same soli- 
tary, weak argument, is founded on a gross 
absurdity; and finally, by removing Mr. 
Booth from the Mosaic rites to the patriarchal 
age, this solitary, absurd argument, vanishes 
like a ghost, and utterly forsakes him. 


A SHORT METHOD 
‘ WITH THE BAPTISTS. 


Ir is a certain fact, that when any sentiment 
is false, it will appear the more glaringly so, 
the more it is examined,and the farther it is 
-drawn out. I have been very attentive to the 
tendency of Mr. Booth’s reasoning, and have 
pledged myself more than once to take some 
notice of it. When a writer does not wish 
to be prolix in answering a large work, it is 
best, if he think the work erroneous, to pitch 
upon some prominent parts, in which the fal- 
lacy of the author is sufficiently palpable to 
tun down and ruin his whole system. I will 
adopt this method with Mr. Booth’s perform- 
ance, wherein he expresses the sentiments, 
and pursues the reasoning of the Baptists in 
general. It is his second edition of Pedobap- 
tism Examined, to which my attention will 
be chiefly directed, as that subject on which I 
shall more directly animadvert, is not handled 
in the answer to Dr. Williams; the Doctor, in 
his piece, having urged nothing upon it: and 
indeed it does not signify which of Mr. Booth’s 
books is quoted, so far as I shall notice him. 
The sentiment of the Baptists, respecting a 
fit subject of the baptismal ordinance, divides 
12 133 


134 A SHORT METHOD 


itself into two parts: they affirm that believ- 
ing adults are fit subjects of baptism ;—they 
deny that baptism should be administered to 
infants. When supporting what they affirm, 
the subject runs very smoothly ; and no man 
that I know, except perhaps a Quaker, will 
deny the conclusion. For my own part, I 
am as well persuaded that a believing adult 
is a fit subject for baptism, as ever I was in 
my life; and I neither have, nor mean to say, 
one word against it. This is the common 
sentiment of Baptists and Peedobaptists, and 
is not, as Mr. Booth falsely and boastingly calls” 
it, the Baptists’ side. As far, therefore, as the 
proof of adult baptism goes, it is all very well, 
and exceedingly plain from Scripture, and is 
admitted, without dispute, by both parties. 
But when the Baptists are brought to an- 
swer for their negative part, wz. infants are 
not to be baptized, their difficulties instantly 
commence, and the mode they adopt of con- 
ducting the debate, drives them into such ex- 
tremities, as ruin the cause they mean to car- 
ry, e.g. Is an infant to be baptized? No, 
says a Baptist. Why? Because baptism, says 
he, being a positive ordinance, no one can be 
deemed a proper subject of it, but ‘by virtue 
of some plain, express command of God. 
This idea of express command, they raise so 
excessively high, that, sure enough, they have 
done the business of infants in cutting them 
off from baptism; but, at the same time, and 
by the same process, a breach is made in fe- 
male communion, and women are cut off from 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 135 


the Lord’s table. This is the first thing that 
rises out of their system, and which will co- 
operate with others to ruin it. I undertake 
to prove, that, according to the principles and 
reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, how- 
ever qualified, can have no right at all to the 
Lord’s supper. 

Again, the Baptists, in order to patch their 
system, and give it the appearance of con- 
sistency, are under the necessity of maintain- 
ing the right of females to the Lord’s table, 
upon the same principle on which they op- 
pose infant baptism; but when they set about 
this, they make a shift to lose their principle, 
are transformed into Pedobaptists, reason by 
analogy and inference, and fall into prevari- 
cation and self-contradiction, the most misera- 
ble. This is the second thing. I, therefore, 
undertake to show, that the Baptists, in prov- 
ing against infants, and in defending female 
communion, do shift their ground, contradict 
themselves, and prevaricate miost pitifully. 

Further, when an argument is urged against 
the Baptists from the membership of infants 
in the ancient church, and their being, all in- 
fants as they, were, the subjects of a religious 
tite, the Baptists do not deny the fact of their 
membership ; but, in order to evade the conse- 
quence, they lay violent hands on the church, 
the membership, and the instituted religious 
rite, and in this way they endeavour to effect 
their escape. This is the third thing. I, there- 
fore, undertake to prove, that, according to 
their principles and reasonings, the ever-bles- 


136 A SHORT METHOD 


sed God had no church in this world for at 
least fifteen hundred years. 

There is another thing I thought of intro- 
ducing against the Baptists in this way; but 
as I know not how they will answer it, 
(since Mr. Booth has said nothing about it, 
though it was in a work which he himself 
has noticed) I intend now to put it in another 
part, in the form of a query, which I shall 
submit to any Baptist who may think proper 
to write on the subject. 

Here are, therefore, three things that arise 
out of the Baptist system, and which, if fairly 
evinced, are sufficient to ruin that system out 
of which they arise. 

1. That, according to the principles and 
reasoning of the Baptists,a woman, however 
qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord’s 
table. 

2. That the Baptists, in opposing infant 
baptism, and defending female communion, 
do shift their ground, contradict themselves, 
and prevaricate most pitifully. 

3. That according to their principles and 
mode of reasoning, God had no church in 
this world for at least fifteen hundred years. 

These things I undertake to make out from 
the works of that venerable champion on the 
Baptist side, the Rev. Abraham Booth. 

1 will begin with the first of these, viz. 
That, according to the principles, &c. of the 
Baptists, no woman, however qualified, can 
have any right to the Lord’s table. But be- 
fore I proceed to the proof, it will be neces- 


WiTH THE BAPTISTS. 137 


sary to observe to the reader, that baptism 
and the Lord’s supper are both considered 
by Mr. Booth as positive ordinances, which I 
will not dispute with him, but do grant them 
to be such. The reader, therefore, will re- 
mark, that as Mr. Booth’s reasoning, by which 
he opposes infant baptism, is founded upon 
this, that baptism isa positive institution ; the 
same reasoning is also applicable to the 
Lord’s supper, because that is likewise a 
positive rite. This Mr. Booth will not deny, 
nor can he deny it, without overturning his 
own system. ‘Then, as the institutions are 
both positive, and the same reasoning will 
apply to both, I undertake to prove, 

1. That, according to the principles and 
reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, how- 
ever qualified, can have no right at all to the 
Lord’s supper. 

That I may make this matter as plain as 
possible to the reader, it will be needful to 
set down various topics from which female 
right to the Lord’s supper may be, or is at 
any time evinced. I say then, if women 
have a right to the Lord’s table, that right 
must be proved from some or all of the fol- 
lowing considerations: viz. From their being 
in the favour of God—from their fitness for 
such an ordinance, as godly persons—from 
the benefit it may be to them—from their 
church-membership—from their baptism— 
or, lastly, from some express precept or ex- 
ample in the word of God. Let us form 
each of these into a question. 

La 


138 A SHORT METHOD 


Question 1. Can the right of a woman to 
the Lord’s table be proved from their interest 
in God’s favour? 

“Inswer. Mr. Booth says, No.—Vol. ii. 
p. 227. “ But supposing it were clearly evin- 
ced that all the children of believers are inte- 
rested in the covenant of grace, it would not 
certainly follow that they are entitled to bap- 
tism. For baptism, being a branch of posi- 
tive worship, [and so the Lord’s supper} 
depends endirely on the sovereign will of its 
Author, which will, revealed in positive pre- 
cepts, or by apostolic examples, is the only 
rule of its administration.”—*So far is it 
from being a fact, that an interest in the new 
covenant, and a title to positive institutions 
[baptism and the Lord’s supper] may be in- 
ferred the one from the other.” Page 228. 
« All reasoning from data of a moral kind, is 
wide of the mark.”’ 

Note. No interest in the covenant of grace, 
or the new covenant, however clearly evin- 
ced, can give any right to a positive institution, 
z. e. either to baptism or the Lord’s supper. 
Then a woman, being in the covenant of 
grace, or in God’s favour, has no right on 
that account to the Lord’s supper; for all 
this depends only on positive precept or ex- 
ample. 

Question 2. Can the right of females be 
proved from their suitableness to that ordi- 
nance as godly persons? 

“inswer. Mr. Booth affirms it cannot. Vol. 
i. p. 227. “But when our Divine Lord, ad- 


‘ 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 139 


dressing his disciples in a positive command, 
says, ‘It shall be so;’ or, when speaking by 
an apostolic example, he declares, ¢ It is thus,’ 
all our own reasonings about /itness, expe- 
diency, or utility, must hide their impertinent 
heads.” Vol. li. p. 228. “This being the 
case, we may safely conclude, that all rea- 
soning from data of a moral kind, and the 
supposed fitness of things, is wide of the 
mark.” Vol. ii. p. 389. “But were we to 
admit the great Vitringa’s presumptions as 
facts, viz. That the infants of believing pa- 
rents are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, p. 377, 
yet, while positive appointments are under 
the direction of positive laws, it would not 
follow that such children should be bap- 
tized.” 

Note. Our being sanctified, and thereby 
possessing a fitness for a positive institution, 
gives us no right at all to that institution, be it 
what it may. No right to any institution, ac- 
cording to Mr. Booth,can be inferred from sane- 
tification of the Spirit; and all our reasoning 
from fitness, or supposed fitness, is altogether 
impertinent, and must hide its impertinent 
head. Sono woman, Mr. Booth being judge, 
has a right to the Lord’s table, on account 
of her being a sanctified or godly person. 

Question 3. Can the right of females to 
the Lord’s table be proved from the benefit 
or usefulness of that ordinance to them ? 

-dnswer. Mr. Booth denies that it can. 
Vol. i. p. 23. “Seeing baptism [and the 
Lord’s supper too] is as really and entirely: 


140 A SHORT METHOD 


a positive institution, as any that were given 
to the chosen tribes, we cannot with safety 
infer either the mode, or the subject of it, 
from any thing short of a precept, or a pre- 
cedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to 
that very ordinance.” Vol. i. p. 227. “When 
our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a 
positive command, says, ‘It shall be so,’ or, 
when speaking by an apostolic example, he 
declares, ‘It is thus,’ all our own reasonings 
about fitness, expediency, or wétility, must 
hide their impertinent heads.” 

Note. To reason from the utility or bene- 
fit of an institution, is quite an impertinent 
thing; so that we cannot say, the Lord’s 
supper may be useful to females; therefore 
females should be admitted to the Lord’s 
supper: for,as Mr. Booth affirms, we cannot 
with safety infer either mode or subject from 
any thing short of precept, or precedent, re- 
eorded in Scripture, and relating to the very 
ordinance. 

Question 4. Can this right of females be 
proved from their church-membership ? 

“Inswer. Mr. Booth says it cannot. Vol. i. 
p. 22. “ Nor does it appear from the records 
of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah 
appointed any branch of ritual worship, he 
left either the subjects of it, or the mode of 
administration, to be inferred by the people, 
from the relation in which they stood to him- 
self, or from general moral precepts, or from 
any branch of moral worship.” In the an- 
swer to Dr. Williams, p. 441, Mr. Booth says, 


. 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 141 


« But had our author proved that infants are 
born members of the visible church, it would 
not thence have been inferable, independent 
of a divine precept, or an apostolic example, 
that it is our duty to baptize them. For as 
baptism is a positive institution,” &c. 

Note. Mr. Booth says, we cannot infer 
the right of a subject to a positive ordinance 
from the relation he stands in to God, not 
even from church-membership ; consequent- 
ly the membership of a female gives her no 
right to the Lord’s table. 

Question 5. Can the right of females to 
the supper, be proved from their baptism ? 

“inswer. No,says Mr. Booth, vol. i. p. 22. 
«“ Nor does it appear from the records of the 
Old Testament, that when Jehovah appoint- 
ed any branch of ritual worship, he left either 
the subjects of it, or the mode of administra- 
tion, to be inferred by the people, from the 
relation in which they stood to himself, or 
from general moral precepts, nor yet from 
any other well-known positive rite.’ Page 
23. “ We cannot with safety infer either the 
mode or the subject of it, [a positive ordi- 
nance] from any thing short of a precept or 
a precedent recorded in Scripture, and rela- 
ting to that very ordinance.’”? This is the 
burden of Mr. Booth’s song. 

Note. Baptism is a well-known positive 
rite; and Mr. Booth denies that the mode or 
subject of one rite could be inferred from an- 
other; consequently baptism can infer no 
tight to the Lord’s supper: for, upon Mr, 


142 A SHORT METHOD 


Booth’s word, we cannot infer either mode or 
subject from any thing short of precept or 
example relating to that very ordinance. 
Now, as the right of females to the Lord’s 
table cannot, upon the principles of the Bap- 
tists, be proved from any of the preceding 
topics, there remains nothing to screen them 
from that consequence which I am now 
fastening upon them, but some express com- 
mand or explicit example. I come in the 
last place, to inquire, 

Question 6. Can the right of women to 
the Lord’s table be proved from any express 
law or example in Holy Scripture : ? 

“inswer. Here Mr. Booth affirms ;—and I 
deny. , 

It will be necessary here to give the reader 
a complete view of Mr. Booth’s defence of 
female communion. This defence is very 
short; but, on his principles, it is the most 
curious, that, I think, was ever offered to the 
public. It is in vol. il, pp. 73, 74, and is as 
follows : 

“In regard to the supposed want of an 
explicit warrant for admitting women to the 
holy table, we reply by demanding: does 
not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine 
himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception 
of the sacred supper?—1. Does not the term 
anthrépos, there used, often stand as a name 
of our species, without regard to sex ?—2. 
Have we not the authority of lexicographers, 
and, which is incomparably more, the sanc- 
tion of common sense, for understanding it 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 148 


thus in this passage ?— 3. When the sexes 
are distinguished and opposed, the word for 
a man is not anthrépos, but aneer. This 
distinction is very strongly marked in that 
celebrated saying of Thales. The Grecian 
sage was thankful to fortune that he was 
anthrépos, one of the human species, and 
not a beast—that he was aneer, a man, and 
not a woman.—4. Besides, when the apos- 
tle delivered to the church at Corinth what 
he had received of the Lord, did he not de- 
liver a command—a command to the whole 
church, consisting of women as well as men? 
When he further says, We, being many, are 
one bread and one body; for we are all par- 
takers of that one bread; does he not speak 
of women as well as of men?—5. Again, are 
there any pre-requisites for the holy supper, 
of which women are not equally as capable 
as men?—6. And are not male and female 
one in Christ ?”?—This is the whole of the 
defence, and I confess I have been often di- 
verted in reading it; I thought it a curiosity, 
as it came from the pen of Mr. Booth, who is 
so great an enemy to all inference and ana- 
logy respecting positive institutions ! 

The whole of this defence I have divided 
into six parts, and these, for the sake of great- 
er plainness, are distinguished by strokes and 
figures. Mr. Booth in these six parts, aims 
at three distinct arguments; the first is taken 
from the word anthrépos, man, which in- 
cludes the three first parts; the second is 
taken from Paul’s address to the church as a 


144 A SHORT METHOD 


body, and takes in the fourth part; the third 
is from the condition and qualification of fe- 
males, and comprehends the two last parts. 
Since Mr. Booth offers this defence to the 
public as proving an explicit warrant for fe- 
male communion; we must, therefore, first of 
all, lay down the precise idea of the term ex- 
plicit. Explicit denotes that which is direct, 
open, and plain; and which immediately 
strikes the mind without reasoning upon it; 
e. g. Acts vill. 12, “They were baptized, 
both men and women.”? Here the reader in- 
stantly discerns both sexes, without inferring 
from any other place. And hence the term 
explicit is opposed to implication, 7. e. any 
thing included under a general word. And 
it is likewise opposed to inference, 7. e. proof 
drawn from some other place. An explicit 
warrant, therefore, is such as strikes at once ; 
and precludes the necessity of implication, 
reasoning, or inferring from some other topic. 
Such a warrant Mr. Booth insists upon for in- 
fant baptism; and this brings him under the 
necessity of producing the same for female 
communion. Which if he be unable to do, all 
he has said against infants will literally stand. 
for nothing, and his books on that subject 
will be even worse than waste-paper.—_Now for 
the explicit warrant for female communion. 
1. We begin with the argument from the 
word anthrépos, man, concerning which Mr. 
Booth says three things to evince an explicit 
warrant. And first, Does not the term an- 
thrépos, man, often stand as a name of our 


WITH THE BAPTISTS, 145 


species without regard to sex? What a lame 
set-out towards .an explicit warrant! orrEN 
stand as a name of our species! That’s ad- 
mirable on our side! This is what the learned 
call presumptive evidence, and this is what 
Mr. Booth produces towards an explicit war- 
rant. Does he think presumptive and explicit 
are thesame? Whatever advantage Mr. Booth 
may wish to take, yet I would not grant this, 
were I in his place, lest some Pedobaptist 
should take an advantage of it too. This pre- 
sumptive mode of arguing on a positive institu- 
tion will not do Mr. Booth much credit; he 
must certainly put on a better appearance 
than this. 

Well then, in the second place; “ Have we 
not,’’ says Mr. Booth, “the authority of lexi- 
cographers, and, which is incomparably more, 
the sanction of common sense, for understand- 
ing it thus in that passage ?””? 1 Cor. xi. 28, 
The authority of lexicographers! and com- 
mon sense ! Here is help for the learned, and 
the unlearned, that both may be able, after 
consultation had, to pick out an explicit war- 
rant! For my own part, I do not much like 
the labour of turning over lexicographers at 
* the best of times, and especially for an ex- 
plicit warrant; ¢. e. a warrant that strikes the 
mind atonce. I rather think Mr. Booth if he 
wished people to labour for that which should 
be had without any labour at all, should have 
sent his inquirers to commentators as well as 
to lexicographers, to know how the apostle 
used the word in question. But suppose we 

13 


146 A SHORT METHOD 


depend on the authority of these lexicogra- 
phers, it may still be proper to ask, how it 
is they know in what manner the apostle 
used this word! Do they know by analogy, 
or by inferring from other premises? Ah! 
Mr. Booth! I fear these gentry would betray 
you. And to give you your due, you do not 
seem to place much confidence in them; for 
you say, that the authority of common sense 
is incomparably more. 

Common sense! Hardly one in five hun- 
dred is able to consult a lexicographer, and 
therefore Mr. Booth in order to make his ex- 
plicit warrant explicit, furnishes help to the 
unlearned. Well, common sense! since it 
pleases Mr. Booth, though you do not under- 
stand Greek, to submit to your determina- 
tion, whether anthrépos be an explicit word 
for a woman, and so, whether there be any 
explicit warrant for female communion, I 
will take the liberty of asking a few ques- 
tions. Do you know what Mr. Booth means 
to prove from 1 Cor. xi. 28. Let a man, 
anthrépos, examine himself, &c.? Yes, he 
means to prove an explicit warrant for fe- 
male communion. Very well. What is an 
explicit warrant? It is that, the sense of — 
which you instantly perceive, without the 
necessity of reasoning upon it, or inferring it 
from some other part. Can a warrant be 
deemed explicit, if it be not founded on ex- 
plicit words? Certainly not; for the words 
constitute the warrant. If the word anthr6- 
pos, man, be used sometimes for a male in- 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 147 


fant of eight days old, John vii. 22, 23; and 
perhaps a hundred times in the New Testa- 
ment for a male adult only; and nineteen 
times in the Septuagint and New ‘Testament, 
to distinguish the male from the female, when 
both are named; would you, after all this, 
consider it as an explicit word for a woman? 
No, it isimpossible. Mr. Booth says, he has 
your authority for understanding it as a name 
of our species, 7. e. comprehending male and 
female, in this place; but if this word be not 
an explicit word for a woman, how do you 
know that women as well as men are in- 
cluded in it? I conclude it from this, that 
women as well as men were baptized; that 
they were received into the church; and 
therefore must be implied in this word. You 
conclude it by analogy, implication, and in- 
ference! These are fine materials for an ex- 
plicit warrant ! 

But if the authority of lexicographers and 
common sense will not bring the business 
home, Mr. Booth is determined to make use 
of his own authority. He has no other way 
of preserving the credit of his book; and, 
therefore, he will even risk his own reputa- 
tion, rather than Jose his explicit warrant. 
He ventures in the third part to say, that, 
“when the sexes are distinguished and op- 
posed, the word for a man is not anthrépos, 
but aneer.”? Thisis Mr. Booth’s own, and he 
himself is accountable for it. The assertion 
is made use of, to give a colour to his expli- 
eit warrant; and it was, no doubt, the neces- 


148 ‘A SHORT METHOD ™ 


sity of his case that drove him to this. He 
had pressed the Pedobaptists, through a 
great part of his eight hundred and seventy- 
five pages, to produce an explicit warrant 
for infant baptism ; and having thereby forged 
a chain for himself, he is now entangled in 
his turn. It is sufficient for me in this place 
to say, that this assertion of Mr. Booth is un- 
founded. I have already presented the rea- 
der with nineteen instances out of the Sep- 
tuagint and New Testament, which lie di- 
rectly against him. Mr. Booth in order to pass 
off this assertion of his with a better grace, 
has given us a quotation, though not at all 
to the point, from Diogenes, out of his Life 
of Thales. What I have to say respecting 
the quotation, is this, that had Diogenes, or 
any one else, affirmed the same as‘Mr. Booth 
(which he has not, nor Thales either,) I 
would have linked them together as two 
false witnesses, And I say further, it seems 
a marvellous thing, that Mr. Booth should be 
so well acquainted with Thales, and his bio- 
grapher Diogenes; and at the same time so 
ignorant of his own Bible. 

This is Mr. Booth’s first argument to prove 
an explicit warrant; and the parts of which 
it is composed are three. It is said, indeed, 
“a threefold cord is not easily broken.”? But 
Solomon did not mean such a cord as Mr. 
Booth’s; his is what people commonly call a 
rope of sand; which will by no means en- 
dure stretching. Here we have, in this part, 
a presumption to begin with; and next, im- 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 149 


plication and inference; and lastly, an un- 
founded declaration to close the whole: This 
is Mr. Booth’s method of making up an ex- 
plicit warrant! And every one knows, that 
when presumption takes the lead, it is no 
wonder if falsehood should bring up the rear, 

2. I come now to take notice of his second 
argument, taken from Paul’s address to the 
church as a body; and which takes in the 
fourth part of his defence of female commu- 
nion. His words are these: « besides, when 
the apostle delivered to the church at Cor- 
inth what he had received of the Lord; did 
he not deliver a command—a command to 
the whole church, consisting of women as 
well as men?”?, When he further says, « We 
being many, are one bread and one body; 
for we are all partakers of that one bread ; 
does he not speak of women as well as men?’’ 
This is Mr. Booth’s way of producing an ex- 
plicit warrant ; did he not deliver a command 
to the whole church, consisting of women as 
well as men? and did he not speak of wo- 
menas wellasmen? It was Mr. Booth’s place 
to show by explicit words, that he did speak 
of women as well as men; but since he has 
only proposed his questions, and has not 
himself affirmed any thing, he seems willing 
to throw the work of inferring off from him- 
self upon the reader. Mr. Booth is an artful 
disputant ; he knew that reasoning by infer- 
ence, which he had so often exploded, would 
be highly unbecoming in him; and therefore, 
to avoid that, he puts it into the formofa 

13* 


150 A SHORT METHOD | 


question, as if he would say, I leave you, my 
reader, to draw the inference. 

If by the command in this argument Mr. 
Booth means these words, “ Let a man ex- 
amine himself, &c.””? he had spoken upon it in 
his way before: and if it had contained any 
explicit warrant for female communion, it was 
certainly in his power to show it: there 
could, therefore, be no necessity to produce 
it again, and especially in the obscure man- 
ner he has done. But if that be the com- 
mand he intends, I defy him to show one 
explicit word for female communion in any 
part of it. He has, indeed, in what he 
thought fit to advance upon it, ventured a 
presumption, an inference, and an unfounded 
declaration; of all which I have spoken suf- 
ficiently already, 

But I rather think he means some other 
command, because he introduces it with the 
word “ besides,” as if intending some fresh 
matter. And if so, I know no more than 
the pen in my hand, what command it is he 
drives at. But be it what it may, he asks, 
whether it was not to women as well as 
men? And I, on the other hand, declare I 
neither know what it was, nor to whom it 
was directed. It certainly was his duty to 
have specified what the command was; and 
if it was a command to receive the Lord’s 
supper, he should then have proved that 
females were as explicitly named therein as 
males. Does Mr. Booth think that, after all 
he has said about express commands, he him- 


WITH THE BAPTISTS, 151 


self is to take any thing for granted, or to 
form a conclusion by a guess? It must be 
absurd in a man like him, who, when he 
pretends to produce an explicit warrant, 
talks to his reader about some unknown 
command; and then, instead of specifying 
what this command was, and showing that 
women were expressly named therein, leaves 
him, in the best way he can, to conjecture 
the whole. 

Mr. Booth having expressed himself plain- 
ly on the first argument, did thereby lay him- 
self open to detection, and it became an easy 
business to expose him for his presumptive 
argument, his inference, and his assertion : 
but he has saved himself from that, in his 
second argument, merely by the obscurity 
of his language. Saved himself, did I say, 
by the obscurity of his language? No, far 
from it. A man renders himself sufficiently 
ridiculous, who comes full of his explicit 
warrant for female communion, and then 
says to his reader, Did not the Apostle de- 
liver a command to women, as well as to 
men? and did he not speak to women, as 
well as to men? When it was his business 
to show that he did, and to bring explicit 
words to prove it. 

3. I advert, lastly, to Mr. Booth’s third ar- 
gument, which is taken from the condition 
and qualification of females, and comprehends 
the last two parts. Thus he expresses him- 
self: “again, are there any pre-requisites 
for the holy supper, of which women are 


152 A SHORT METHOD 


not equally capable as men? And are not 
male and female one in Christ ?””—I have no 
reason to complain of the ambiguity of this 
argument, any more than that of the first; it 
is sufficiently plain, that even he that runs 
may read it. J shall, therefore, only briefly 
observe upon it, that 

The mode of reasoning, which Mr. Booth 
has openly adopted in this place, is that of 
analogy. The analogy lies between the male 
and the female, thus: that the one has the 
same pre-requisites for the Lord’s table as 
the other, and both the one and the other are 
in Jesus Christ. From hence arises an in- 
ference: if both have the same relation to 
Christ, and the same pre-requisites for the 
holy supper, then the female must, by just 
consequence, have the same right to the holy 
supper as the male. 

Well said, Mr. Booth! This is so neat, that 
I could almost find in my heart to forget that 
explicit warrant, which you had spoken of 
some time ago. Now you talk like a logical 
man, and a generous man too; for your last 
is better by far than your first. It must be 
much better to be thus open, than to hazard 
your reputation by any thing forced, or any 
thing false. You see what a good thing it 
is to have analogy and inference ready’at 
hand, and how admirably adapted they are 
to help at a dead lift. We should not des- 
pise any help, as we know not how soon we 
may need it; and, to give you your due, you 
have been neither too proud nor too stub- 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 153 


born to make use of this. You may be the 
more easily excused for what you have said 
against analogy and inference, for, as you 
are a Baptist, what you have said was a 
matter of consistency; but now you are be- 
come a patron of female communion, the 
case is altered, and you are altered with it. 
Bet, at the same time, this is no more than 
what all the Baptists, with whom I have 
ever conversed on the subject, have done; 
and if it will be any comfort to you in this 
case, I can tell you, with great certainty, 
that I have met with many of your frater- 
nity who have been as great changelings in 
this business as yourself. At present I only 
blame you for this, that, under the colour 
of explicit proof, you should introduce, and 
endeavour to pass off, nothing better, but 
something -far worse, than inferential reason- 
ing. 

I would just remark on what Mr. Booth 
has advanced in support of his explicit war- 
rant, that the defence he has set up carries in 
it its own conviction. I mean with respect 
to the number of particulars—the manner in 
which they are proposed—and the matter of 
which they consist. 

‘Now it is the nature of an explicit warrant 
to show itself instantly to the mind of the 
reader; and its own evidence is the strongest 
it can have; the consequence is that he who 
really produces one, neither can, nor does 
need, to strengthen it by any reasons he can 
advance; e.g. Were I called upon to pro- 


154 A SHORT METHOD 


duce an explicit warrant for female baptism, 
I would only allege those words in Acts viii. 
12. “ They were baptized both men and wo- 
men.’? These words strike the mind at once, 
and no reasoning whatever can add any thing 
to their strength or evidence; but Mr. Booth, 
by introducing six particulars, shows plainly 
that neither of them is explicit, and that it is 
not in his power to produce any explicit war- 
rant at all; for had any one of these been ex- 
plicit for female communion, he might very 
well have thrown away all the rest. - 
In this view there is another thing remark- 
able in his defence, and that is, that every 
sentence but one runs in the form of a ques- 
tion to the reader. Instead of advancing his 
explicit proof, Mr. Booth comes to the reader 
in forma pauperis, with his petition in his 
mouth, as if he would say, O generous rea- 
der, grant me what I ask, or—my cause is 
ruined! I have been driving against infant 
baptism with all my might, crying out, No 
explicit warrant, no explicit warrant for in- 
fant baptism in all the word of God! And 
now, as I am called upon myself to give an 
explicit warrant for female communion, I 
beseech thee, indulgent reader, to admit my 
presumption, implication, inference, and ana- 
logy, for explicit proof. I said that every 
sentence in this defence but one was put in 
the form of a question. Now what is still 
more remarkable is this, that that one sen- 
tence, which is the only affirmative in the 
whole defence, should be the very false as- 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 155 


sertion against which I have already pro- 
duced nineteen instances. 

If we pass from the number of parts which 
are contained in this defence, and the man- 
ner in which they are presented to the reader, 
and come to the matter of it, we may say of 
that, that there is not a single article in it, 
but what is either false, or presumptive, or 
inference, or analogy, or implication. Every 
part is reducible to one or other of these ; and 
there is not one explicit word for female com- 
munion throughout the whole. Such a de- 
fence as this would not have done very well 
in the hands of a Padobaptist; but when 
adopted by a Baptist, it is ridiculous in him- 
self, and an insufferable abuse of, and a bur- 
lesque upon, his reader. In short, there is 
no explicit warrant to be had. 

Now to the point. I was to prove that, 
according to the principles and reasonings of 
the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, 
can have no right at all to the Lord’s supper. 
We have seen on the one hand, that it is not 
possible to produce an explicit warrant for 
female communion, and, on the other, Mr. 
Booth affirms that they should not be admitted 
without one; the result, therefore, is, that, ac- 
cording to Mr. Booth’s mode of reasoning, no 
woman has any right at all to communicate 
at the Lord’s table; andas Mr. Booth agrees 
with Baptists in general in this point, the 
same is true of the principles and reasonings 
of them all.—This is the first consequence 
which I undertook to make good among the 


156 A SHORT METHOD 


Baptists, and from which they have only two 
ways of clearing themselves. They must 
either give up their mode of reasoning against 
infants, or, if they do not choose this, they 
must produce the same express proof for fe- 
male communion as they require for infant 
baptism. 

As Mr. Booth has plainly asserted that 
there can be no argument for female commu- 
nion but such as is founded on positive pre- 
cept or example, recorded in Scripture, and 
“elating to that very ordinance, it lies upon 
him to come forward and produce his war- 
rant, or give up female communion. If I 
were to answer his book, I would turn the 
inquiry from infant baptism to female com- 
munion, and then put it upon him to make 
good his conclusion for the right of females 
upon the very same principles which he em- 
ploys against infants. And I do now in good 
earnest put this upon him, and heartily in- 
vite him to the task, being verily persuaded 
that if this subject were thoroughly sifted, it 
would be the speediest method of adjusting 
the debate. 

When I had compared what Mr. Booth has 
said against infants with what he has said in 
defence of women, I have been ready to sus- 
pect that he designed his book should operate 
on the Padobaptist side; for, when speaking — 
against infant baptism, he carries his demand 
of express, unequivocal, and explicit proof so 
high, and enlarges upon it so much, as if, by 
making it exceedingly remarkable, he wished 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 157 


some one to compare the whole with his de- 
fence of female communion, and _ perceived 
that the moment this was done, the cause of 
the Baptists would fall. And had Mr. Booth 
been a person whose character for integrity 
was not known, it would have been a matter 
of some difficulty with me to determine 
whether he did not design, in a covert way, 
to run down the Baptists’ side. But knowing 
him to be a man of good reputation, I rea- 
dily acquit him of this; yet I think, at the 
same time, that his book, though written on 
the Baptist side, will do more towards over- 
turning the Baptist sentiment than any one. 
that has been written for many centuries. 

Thus much for the first consequence, viz. 
that, according to the reasonings of the Bap- 
tists, no woman has any more right to the 
Lord’s supper than an infant has to baptism. 
But they, not liking this consequence, are 
induced to set up a defence of female com- 
munion on the ground of express warrant ; 
and in doing this, they prevaricate, discard 
their own principle, reason by analogy and 
inference, and fall into self-contradiction: 
this is the second consequence I have before 
mentioned, and which I will now plainly 
evince. 

Mr. Booth, in vol. ii. p. 509, expresses his 
surprise at the inconsistency of Peedobaptists 
with each other. “But is it not,’? says he, 
“T appeal to the reader; is it not a very sin- 
gular phenomenon in the religious world, 
that so many denominations of protestants 

14 


158 A SHORT METHOD 


should all agree in one general conclusion, 
and yet differ to such.an extreme about the 
premises whence it should be inferred ?”” To 
this I only say, if it be a very singular phe- 
nomenon for a number of persons to be in- 
consistent with each other, it must be a more 
singular one still for one man to differ from 
himself. We will take a view of Mr. Booth 
in a double capacity—as a patron of female 
communion, and as an opposer of infant bap- 
tism. 

Mr. Booth’s defence of female communion 
does not take up one clear page; the errone- 
ous statement, and the quotation made use 
of to set it off, make up more than one third 
of the defence; so there are only nineteen 
lines remaining: I will, therefore, select some 
passages from his opposition to infant bap- 
tism, and place them against what he has ad- 
vanced, in these nineteen lines, in defence of 
female communion. I do this to show that 
a Baptist cannot maintain that ground on 
which he opposes infant baptism—that he is 
compelled to desert his own principle, and 
does actually prevaricate, and contradict him- 
self; from which, as well as from other to- 
pics, it will appear, that the cause of the 
Baptists is a lost cause. I shall now intro- 
duce Mr. Booth in his double capacity. 

I. When Mr. Booth is an opposer of infant 
baptism, he speaketh on this wise: Vol. ii. p. 
228. “This being the case, we may safely 
conclude that all reasoning from data of a 
moral kind, and the supposed fitness of things, 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 159 . 


is wide of the mark.”’ Vol. i. p. 227. “ But 
when our divine Lord, addressing his disci- 
ples in a positive command, says, ‘It shall 
be so,’ or when, speaking by an apostolic 
example, he declares, ‘ It is thus,’ all our own 
reasonings about fitness, expediency, or util- 
ity, must hide their impertinent heads.” 

But when Mr. Booth becomes a defender 
of female communion, he expresseth himself 
thus: Vol. ii. pp. 73, 74. “In regard to the 
supposed want of an explicit warrant for ad- 
mitting women to the holy table, we reply 
by demanding—Are there any pre-requisites 
for the holy supper, of which women are not 
equally capable as men?”? Thus Mr. Booth. 
He only asks the question, and leaves the in- 
ference to the reader. This is artfully done, 
for fear he should seem to prove a right toa 
positive institution by inference. 

The reader is desired to observe, that Mr. 
Booth in opposing infant baptism, will admit 
of no reasoning from moral data, or the sup- 
posed fitness of things, and says that all such 
reasoning is wide of the mark. And he like- 
Wise says, “that all our reasonings about fit- 
ness—must hide their impertinent heads.” 
But, in defending female communion, he 
asks, “ Are there any pre-requisites for the 
holy supper, of which women are not equally 
capable as men?’’ Here Mr. Booth, the patron 
of female communion, adopts the same rea- 
soning which Mr. Booth, the opposer of infant 
baptisni, had declared to be wide of the mark. 
As the patron of females, he will reason from 


160 A SHORT METHOD 


the fitness of things—‘“are there any pre- 
requisites for the holy supper, of which wo- 
men are not equally capable as men?” As 
the opposer of infants, he insisted that all 
such reasonings should hide their impertinent 
heads. If the patron of females and the op- 
poser of infants be the same person, he must 
be guilty of gross inconsistency; for he at- 
tempts to pass off that reasoning upon others, 
which he himself-declares to be wide of the 
mark; and will needs bring those heads of 
reasoning to light, which he brands with the 
name of impertinent, and says that their im- 
pertinent heads must be hid. This in and 
out proceeding of the patron of females and 
opposer of infants I submit to the judgment 
of the reader, and leave the patron and op- 
poser to settle the matter the best way he 
can. 

IJ. Again, Mr. Booth when opposing infant 
baptism, says, vol. i. p. 23. “Seeing baptism 
is really and entirely a positive institution, 
we cannot with safety infer either the mode 
or the subject of it from any thing short of a 
precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, 
and relating to that very ordinance.”’ Vol. ii. 
p. 227. “ Baptism, being a branch of positive 
worship, depends entirely on the sovereign 
will of its Author; which will, revealed in 
positive precepts, or by apostolic examples, 
is the only rule of its administration’? And 
in vol. ii. p. 44, he says, «The inquirer has 
nothing to do but open the New Testament, 
and consult a few express commands and 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 161 


plain examples, and consider the natural and 
proper sense of the words, and then, without 
the aid of commentators, or the help of criti- 
cal acumen, he may decide on the question 
before him,’’ A little after he speaks of ex- 
press commands and express examples, which 
is his uniform mode of expression when op- 
posing infants. 

But when Mr. Booth comes to defend fe- 
male communion, he expresses himself thus: 
Vol. il. p. 73. “ In regard to the supposed want 
of an explicit warrant for admitting women 
to the holy table, we reply by demanding— 
Does not the term anthrépos, there used, 
often stand as a name of our species without 
regard to sex? Have we not the authority 
of lexicographers, and, which is incompara- 
bly more, the sanction of common sense, for 
understanding it thus in that passage? When 
the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the 
word for a man is not anthrépos but aneer.”’ 

The reader is requested to notice, that Mr, 
Booth, as an opposer of infant baptism, con- 
tends for precept, positive precept, express 
commands, or express examples, and says, in 
his index, that the law of institutions must be 
express, &c. but, as a defender of female com- 
munion, he takes up with an ambiguous word, 
a mere presumptive proof—« Does not,’’ says 
he, “the term anthrépos often stand as a 
name of our species?” and this presumption 
he attempts to strengthen by an error, of 
which I have already spoken. As an opposer 
of infants he says the inquirer may decide 

14* 


162 A SHORT METHOD 


the question without the aid of commentators, 
or the help of critical acumen; but as a pa- 
tron of females, he first furnishes his reader 
with an ambiguous word, and then sends 
him to lexicographers to have it manufac- 
tured into a positive one. Since it was not 
in Mr. Booth’s power to form a positive pre- 
cept out of an ambiguous word, without the 
aid of a little inference, he very artfully throws 
it into the hands of lexicographers and com- 
mon sense to effect this business for him. 
And one cannot sufficiently admire how te- 
nacious he is of express precept when an op- 
poser of infants, while at the same time, as 
the patron of females, he is so very comply- 
ing, that he can even admit presumptive evi- 
dence to pass for an explicit warrant. 

III. Further, Mr. Booth, in opposing infant 
baptism, expresses himself thus: Vol. 1. p. 22, 
“ Nor does it appear from the records of the 
Old Testament, that when Jehovah appointed 
-any branch of ritual worship, he left either 
the subjects of it, or the mode of administra- 
tion, to be inferred by the people from the 
relation in which they stood to himself, or 
from general moral precepts, or from any 
branch of his moral worship, nor yet from 
any other well-known positive rite; but he 
gave them special directions relating to the 
very case.”” In vol. ii. p. 227, he says, “ But 
supposing it were clearly evinced that all the 
children of believers are interested in the co- 
venant of grace, it would not certainly follow 
that they are entitled to baptism; for baptism 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 163 


being a branch of positive worship, depends 
entirely on the sovereign will of its Author, 
which will, revealed in positive precepts, or 
by apostolic examples, is the only rule of its 
administration.”” And in the same page he 
says, “So far is it from being a fact, that an 
interest in the new covenant, and a title to 
positive institutions may be inferred the one 
from the other.” 

But in proving the right of women to the 
Lord’s table, he says, vol. ii. pp. 73, 74. In 
regard to the supposed want of an explicit 
warrant for admitting women to the holy 
table, we reply by demanding—Are not male 
and female one in Christ??? As if he should 
say, if a female be in Christ, which is the 
same as being in the covenant of grace, she 
must have a right to a positive institution. 
Here is art and inference together! The art 
appears in this, that Mr. Booth would not be 
seen to draw the inference himself, but Jeaves 
that to a Pedobaptist, who is more accus- 
tomed to that kind of work. 

But leaving Mr. Booth’s art in shunning to 
draw the inference, I would desire the reader 
to attend him once more in his double capa- 
city. In that of an opposer of infants, he 
affirms, that a right to a positive ordinance is 
not to be inferred from the relation we stand 
in to God; when a patron of females, he wil! 
infer their right to the Lord’s supper from 
their being one in Christ with males. As an 
opposer of infants, he insists that an interest 
in the covenant of grace, though clearly 


164 A SHORT METHOD 


evinced, gives no claim to an instituted rite; 
as a patron of females, he contends that if a 
woman be interested in Christ, she has there- 
fore a right to such an institution. Asan op- 
poser, he declares it is far from being a fact, 
that an interest in the new covenant, and a 
title to positive institutions, may be inferred 
the one from the other; as a patron, he will 
do that which is so far from being a fact. 
He infers the one from the other, the right 
from the interest—“are not male and female 
one in Christ?”? He is very inflexible as an 
opposer, and very pliant as a patron, So 
that, however the opposer of infants may 
differ in his mode of reasoning from Peedo- 
baptists, the patron of females finds it neces- 
sary to reason in the same way. It isa pity 
the patron and opposer do not agree, as it 
would certainly be for the credit of both to 
settle on some uniform mode of logic. 

Before I turn from this, I would just glance 
at Mr. Booth’s defence of female communion 
by itself. Mr. Booth should have made this 
a distinct chapter, and should have placed a 
title at the head of it; but as he has not done 
this, I will take the liberty of doing it for him; 
and the reader may observe, in the mean time, 
how the chapter and title will agree. Mr. 
Booth begins his defence in these words: “in 
regard to the supposed want of an explicit 
warrant for admitting women to the holy 
table, we reply,”’ &c. This will furnish with 
a title, which will run thus: 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 165 


The right of Women to the Lord’s Table, found- 
ed on explicit warrant, 


N. B. An explicit warrant for females is one wherein their 
sex is specified, and is opposed to all implication, analogy, and 
inference...... Now for the Chapter. 

“Does not Paul, when he says, ‘Let a 
man examine himself and so let him eat, 
enjoin a reception of the sacred supper? 
Does not the term anthrépos, there used, 
often Stand as a name of our species, with- 
out regard to sex?” [This is presumptive 
proof.| “Have we not the authority of 
lexicographers, and, which is incomparably 
more, the sanction of common sense, for un- 
derstanding it thus in that passage ?”’ [This 
is inference.] “When the sexes are distin- 
guished and opposed, the word for a man 
is not anthrépos, but aneer.””? [This is an 
error.] ‘“ When the apostle delivered to the 
church at Corinth what he had received of 
the Lord, did he not deliver a command—a 
command to the whole church, consisting of 
women as well as men?” [This at best is 
implication or presumption.] “ When he 
further says, We, being many, are one bread 
and one body, for we are all partakers of 
that one bread, does he not speak of women 
as well as of men?’ [This is the same as 
before; and Mr. Pierce would have said, 
“infants,” as well as men and women.] 
“ Again, are there any pre-requisites for the 
holy supper of which women are not equally 
capable as men?” [This is analogy and in- 


166 A SHORT METHOD 


ference together.] “And are not male and 
female one in Christ ?”” [This is analogy and 
inference again. ] 

The reader will observe that the Title pro- 
mises an explicit warrant, that is, a warrant 
in which the sex is specified, and which 
stands opposed to implication, analogy, and 
inference ; but the chapter produces nothing 
explicit, the whole being nothing more than 
a compound of presumption, implication, ana- 
logy, and inference. 

The whole of Mr. Booth’s conduct in this’ 
affair brings to mind a passage of Mr. Alsop, 
which Mr. Booth has quoted in vol. ii. p. 507. 
“The reader will learn at least how impossi- 
ble it is for error to be consonant to itself. 
As the two mill-stones grind one another as 
well as the grain, and as the extreme vices 
oppose each other as well as the intermedi- 
ate virtue that lies between them, so have 
all errors this fate, (and it is the best quality 
they are guilty of,) that they duel one an- 
other with the same heat that they oppose 
the truth.” Mr. Booth’s two mill-stones are 
his opposition to infant baptism, and his de- 
fence of female communion. These two mili- 
tant parts, like the two mill-stones, do operate 
in hostile mode, and rub, and chafe, and grind 
each other, as well as infant baptism, which 
lies between. And it is certainly the best 
property Mr. Booth’s book is possessed of, 
that it exhibits the author in his double capa- 
city, not only as militating against the baptism 
of infants, but asduelling and battering himself 


WITH THE BAPTISTS 167 


with the same heat with which he opposes 
that. Three short reflections on this conduct 
of Mr. Booth and one apology will finish this 
part of the subject. 

I. There is something in this conduct very 
unfair. No man should bind a burden on 
others, which he himself would not touch 
with one of his fingers. Can it be deemed 
an upright proceeding in Mr. Booth to cry 
down all reasoning by analogy andinference on 
a positive institution, and after that use the 
same reasoning,and even worse, himself? Can 
it be considered fair to demand, repeatedly 
and loudly to demand, special, express, and 
explicit proof, and then put off the reader 
with presumption, inference, and analogy? 
Certainly he should do as he would be done 
by; but if this conduct of his be fair, I know 
not what is otherwise, 

II. There is something in this conduct 
very impolitic. After Mr. Booth haddemanded 
positive, express, and explicit proof, and had 
trun down all proof by analogy and infer- 
ence, he should, if he had had but a little 
policy, have kept that defence of female 
communion entirely out of sight. It was 
not crafty in him, though there is a spice of 
it in the defence itself, to suffer that to go 
abroad, which, when set against what he 
.had said in opposition to infant baptism, 
would run down and ruin the whole. Had 
1 been he, and wished my other arguments 
to stand, I would have taken that defence, 
and thrown it into the fire. 


168 A SHORT METHOD 


III. There is something in this conduct 
very unfortunate. It is a sad case that a 
book should be so written, that one part 
shall rise up against and ruin the other, Mr. 
Booth, Samson-like, when opposing infant bap- 
tism, thinks he can carry gates and bars, 
and every thing else away; but when he de- 
fends female communion, Samson-like again, 
he becomes like another man, that is, a Pe- 
dobaptist ; for he reasons, infers, and proves, 
in the very same way. In one thing, how- 
ever, he differs, and herein he is unfortunate, 
that instead of killing the Philistines, to wit, 
the arguments of Padobaptists, he falls to 
combating himself, and destroys his own. 

What shall we say to these things? I re- 
ply, that with respect to myself I say thus 
much: that as he is unfair, I would reprove 
him; as he is impolitic, I would excuse him; 
as he is unfortunate, I would pity him; and, 
under all these views, I would make the 
best apology for him which the nature of the 
case will admit. 

Since it is evident that Mr. Booth demands 
express, positive, and explicit proof, with 
respect to the mode and subject of an insti- 
tuted rite, and as it is equally evident that he 
himself reasons on such a rite by implication, 
analogy, and inference, the apology I make 
for him, and it is the best I can make, is this :, 
that he understood explicit proof, which he 
had so much insisted on, and proof by in- 
ference, which he himself adopted, to mean 
precisely the same thing; so that when any 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 169 


thing was proved by inference, &c. that proof 
was considered by him as express and expli- 
cit. This, I say, is the best apology I can 
make for those repugnancies, or, (if this apo- 
logy be admitted,) seeming repugnancies, I 
find in his book. But, methinks, I hear some 
Pedobaptist say, If this apology be good, it 
will indeed reconcile some of his inconsisten- 
cies, but then he will, at the same time, stand 
in need of another; for if express proof and 
proof by inference be the same thing, I should 
be glad to know why he wrote his book at 
all. To this I'can only say, that I have no 
other apology to make ; let him apologize for 
himself. Leaving Mr. Booth or any one else, 
to manage these incongruities the best way he 
can, I pass to the third consequence, namely, 
That, according to the principles and rea- 
sonings of the Baptists, God had no church in 
this world at least for fifteen hundred years. 
The way in which the Baptists are driven 
into this consequence is this: when it is 
urged against them that infants were consti- 
tuted church members, and were, by the 
Lord himself, deemed fit subjects of a religi- 
ous rite, they, in order to avoid a conse- 
quence which would bear hard on their ar- 
guments, endeavour to reduce this church 
into a mere civil society ; and as they cannot 
deny the membership of infants, they try to 
escape by destroying the church. Now, as 
this is a necessary consequence of their prin- 
ciple, it will serve to discover the error of 
that principle of which it is a consequence. 
15 


170 A SHORT METHOD 


Mr. Booth, in trying to effect his escape in 
this way, has used a language, which, if 
true, will prove that God for many centuries 
had no church at all in this world. This is 
Mr. Booth’s expedient, but it is a desperate 
one. In vol. ii. p. 252, he calls the then ex- 
isting church, an “ ecclesiastico-political con- 
stitution.”? By this compound word he seems 
to consider the church under the notion of an 
amphibious society; partly civil, and partly 
religious. And he might have likewise con- 
sidered, that, as nothing in nature differs 
more than policy among men and piety to- 
wards God, they must be viewed in all bo-. 
dies of men, whether large or small, as things 
totally and at all times distinct. But this Mr. 
Booth’s system would not admit. Now ina 
large body, as the Jews for instance, all laws 
pertaining to human society, as such, were 
civil laws; and all laws, though in the same 
code with the others, relating to the worship 
of God, were, properly speaking, ecclesiasti- 
cal laws. So with respect to men, when 
they are united in promoting order and mu- 
tual security, they are to be considered as a 
political state; but if some, or all of these 
profess piety towards God, and unite in his 
worship, they are to be viewed as a visible 
church. And though all the inhabitants of 
Judea belonged to the state, it will not fol- 
low that all belonged to the visible church. 
There were without doubt some excommu- 
nicated persons, some who voluntarily with- 
drew, and there might be many, who came 


WITH THE BAPTISTS, 171 


into the land of Israel, that did not join them- 
selves to the Lord. There was, therefore, no 
just reason why Mr. Booth should confound 
things, which in their own nature are, and 
ever must be, separate. Neither is it proba- 
ble he would have done it, if he had not 
been compelled by his opposition to the con- 
tinuance of infant-membership. 

Though Mr. Booth, by the phrase ecclesi- 
astico-political constitution, has confounded 
the church and state, the one being a kingdom 
of this world, the other the kingdom of Christ; 
yet as something of church still makes its 
appearance, the consequence charged on Bap- 
tist principles may not seem to be clearly 
evinced. ’*Tis true, he seems to grant two 
parts, the political and ecclesiastical; but if 
we look more narrowly into his book, the 
ecclesiastical part disappears, and nothing will 
remain but the political only. 

In vol. ii. p. 251, Mr. Booth has these em- 
phatic words: “to be an obedient subject of 
their [the Jews’ ] civil government, and a com- 
plete member in their church-state, were the 
same thing.”” Every one knows, that a civil 
government, be it where it may, is conversant 
about present things, it is a government 
among [czves] citizens as such, and is design- 
ed to regulate their worldly concerns. An 
obedient subject of such a government, is one 
who quietly and cheerfully submits to its 
regulations, and seeks the peace and security 
of that community to which he belongs. 
Now Mr. Booth assures us that such was the 


172 A SHORT METHOD 


nature of things among the Jews, that “an 
obedient subject of the civil government, and 
a complete member of the church-state, were 
the same.’’ If this were so, it must be be- 
cause the civil government was nothing less 
than the church ; and the church was nothing 
more than the civil government; that is, they 
were both the same thing. It signifies nothing 
by what name we call this community, whe- 
ther a national church, or an ecclesiastico- 
political constitution; it means no more at 
last than a civil government: for, as Mr. Booth 
informs us, there was nothing more required 
in a complete member of what he calls the 
church, than his being an obedient subject 
of the civil government. Now as this, what- 
ever it was, could be no church of God, and 
as it is not supposed there was a church of a 
higher nature in any other part; it will follow, 
that, according to Mr. Booth’s principles, God 
had for many centuries no such thing as a 
church, properly so called, in this world. 
What a church destroyer is this same Mr. 
Booth! And when we consider that all this 
results from principle, and is carried on by re- 
gular logical process; what a horrid principle 
must that be which leads a man to destroy: 
the very church of God! Though I have 
been a Baptist myself for several years, I 
never till lately discerned this’ shocking con- 
sequence of the Baptist sentiment. And I 
am much indebted to Mr. Booth for an insight 
into this, as well as other consequences which 
necessarily result from the Baptist scheme. 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 173 


And I have no doubt but his book, when 
nicely examined, will do more good this way 
than any thing which has hitherto been writ- 
ten on the subject. 

As Mr. Booth to preserve his system, has 
laid violent hands on the ancient church of 
God; we cannot suppose that that which was 
connected with it could possibly escape. He 
that could reduce the church into a civil go- 
vernment, will not think it much to manu- 
facture a religious institution into a political 
rite. What» was circumcision? According 
to Mr. Booth « it was a sign of carnal descent, 
a mark of national distinction, and a token 
of interest in temporal blessings.’”” Here in- 
deed is a good match; a civil institution, and 
a civil government! Now, though there is not 
a word of truth in all this; yet this honour 
Mr. Booth shall have, and it is an honour I 
cannot always give him, that in this he is ac- 
tually consistent with himself: he has secular- 
ized the church and the institution together. 

I will not now contend with Mr. Booth 
whether he has given a true account of the an- 
cient church, and its members; it is sufficient 
for my present purpose to take notice of what 
he has affirmed. Yet I could wish, should 
he write again upon the subject (as I hope he 
will,) to see a fuller account of that church, 
the complete members of which were only 
obedient subjects of the civil government.. I 
have never, in my small reading, met with a 
definition of a church like this; it is enough 
for me now that Mr. Booth has. My business 

1 * 


174 A SHORT METHOD 


is not to dispute, but to take it upon his word. 
I only say, that if such a church did ever ex- 
ist, whatever it was, it could be no church 
of God. And as there was no better church, 
z.e. a civil government, in any other part; 
there was not, on Mr. Booth’s principles, for 
many centuries, a church of God, properly 
so called, in all the world. 

«“ An obedient subject of their civil govern- 
ment, and a complete member of their church 
state, were the same thing.’”? The same thing! 
If, then, the complete member was no more 
than an obedient subject; the church state 
could be no more than a civil government : 
for, according to Mr. Booth they were precise- 
ly the same thing. What might be the reason 
of all this? Mr. Booth shall inform us himself; 
it was, “ because by treating Jehovah as their 
political sovereign, they avowed him as the 
true God.”? As it is not my business in this 
place to oppose any thing Mr. Booth says; I 
shall only take the liberty to explain. What 
is a political sovereign? He is one who reigns 
over others in civil things; that is, he governs 
and regulates the affairs of this present world. 
This is the reason then, that an obedient sub- 
ject of civil government, and a complete 
church member, were the same thing; be- 
cause all that God had to do with them was, 
as a political sovereign, to regulate the affairs 
of the present world. 

But where would have been the harm of 
supposing the ever-blessed Jehovah to have 
been more, infinitely more, than a political 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 175 


sovereign? And that he gave his word and 
ordinances to lead to the faith of Christ? 
That he sent his prophets to bear witness, 
that through his name whosoever believed 
in him should receive remission of sins? That 
he formed a people for himself, to show forth 
his praise? Where, I say, would have been 
the harm of supposing this? None at all, in 
reality; the harm would only have been to 
Mr. Booth’s system. For had Jehovah been 
a religious sovereign, he would have had a 
religious community, and that community 
would have been a religious church, z. e. a 
church professing godliness; and then, an 
obedient subject of civil government would 
not have been a complete member ; and then, 
their institution would have been a religious 
institution ; and then—what then? And then 
Mr. Booth’s system would have gone to ruin. 
But he wisely foreseeing this, takes measures 
to secularize the whole. He begins at the 
head, and goes down to the institution. Jeho- 
vah must be a political sovereign, that the 
church may be political; the church must be 
political, that the membership may be so too; 
the membership must be political, that the 
institution may be political also. So all was 
political; a political sovereign, a political 
church, a political member, and a political 
institution. And now Mr. Booth has gained 
his point; for sure enough, there can be no 
analogy between a church and no church; 
and consequently no argument can be drawn 
in favour of infant membership from a church 


176 A SHORT METHOD 


which never was, to a church that now exists. 
Yes, he has gained his point, he has run down 
infant baptism; but, at the same time, he has 
eradicated the church of God. Nay, he was 
under a necessity of eradicating the church 
of God, that infant baptism might be run 
down. This has given me a notion of infant 
baptism far different from what I ever had. 
And, if I could say, that any one thing has 
satisfied my mind respecting it more than an- 
other, it has been this: I saw that infant bap- 
tism could by no means be overthrown, with- 
out overthrowing the church of God. And 
for this conviction I am indebted to that very 
book, on which I have taken the liberty to 
animadvert. Nothing, therefore, in nature 
can be plainer than this consequence, that 
the system of Mr. Booth has subverted the 
church of God. 

These are the three consequences which 
rise out of the Baptist system, and which, I 
have said, will operate to ruin that system 
out of which they arise: namely, 

1. That, according to the principles and 
reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, how- 
ever qualified, can have no right to the Lord’s 
table. 

2. That the Baptists, in opposing infan 
baptism, and defending female communion, 
do vary their mode of reasoning, contradict 
themselves, and prevaricate most wretchedly. 

3. That, according to their principles and 
reasoning, God had no church in this world 
for many centuries. 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 177 


I shall now close the Appendix by an ap- 
peal to the reader; and this I mean to do in 
three questions. 

1. Are these consequences real? ‘To an- 
swer this question I need only appeal to the 
Appendix itself. There the reader may sat- 
isfy himself respecting their reality. As to 
the first, it is there evident, that there is no 
explicit command for female communion ; 
and, according to the Baptist system, they 
are not to commune without: the conse- 
quence is, that they have no right to com- 
mune at all. With regard to the second, I 
have placed Mr. Booth’s defence of female 
communion against his opposition to infant 
baptism ; and whatrepugnancy, prevarication, 
and self-contradiction, are discoverable in 
these two, I have presented to the reader. 
The third speaks openly for itself, that the 
best chutch in the world for many centuries, 
was nothing else but a civil government. 

2. Do these consequences rise out of the 
Baptist system? For an answer to this I 
might refer the reader to the former part of 
the Appendix; where he may see in what 
way they actually do arise out of their sys- 
tem. Their system destroys the right of fe- 
males to the Lord’s supper, by demanding 
explicit proof for infant baptism; because 
there is no such proof for female communion. 
Their attempt to prove the right of females 
to commune, involves them in the most mean 
prevarication and self-contradiction. And in 
overthrowing the argument for infant bap- 


178 A SHORT METHOD 


tism taken from the membership of infants 
in God’s ancient church, they overthrow the 
very church itself. In this way, these horrid 
consequences owe their birth to that bad sys- 
tem. 

3. Are such consequences as these which 
rise out of the Baptist system, sufficient to ruin 
that system out of which they rise? ‘To this 
I answer, that if any consequences are sufli- 
cient to ruin a system, these are they. It is 
a rule in reasoning, that that argument which 
proves too much destroys itself. The same 
is also true of a system; the system that 
proves too much must follow the fate of its 
kindred argument, and prove its own destruc- 
tion. This system, it is true, proves against 
infant baptism; but there it does not stop, it 
carries its force still further; it proves against 
female communion, and against the existence 
of God’s church ; and to complete the whole, 
it proves against the author who patronizes it. 
So that if infant baptism fall, they all fall to- 
gether ; female communion falls, the church 
of God falls, the author himself, Mr. Booth, 
falls, and all by the same fatal system. For 
if this system makes infant baptism a nullity, 
it makes female communion a nullity too; and 
turns the church itself into a civil government, 
and turns the patron of it into a self-contradic- 
tor. This, if any thing can be, is proving too 
much; and, therefore, that system which is pro- 
ductive of such consequences, must itself be 
destroyed by the consequences it produces, 
And I appeal to the conscience of any reader 


WITH THE BAPTISTS. 179 


whether these consequences have not been 
proved, and whether they are not sufficient 
to destroy any system. 

I call this a short method with the Bap- 
tists, because, whatever course they may 
take, it will serve to ruin their scheme. If, 
on the one hand, these consequences are suf- 
fered to remain as they do now in Mr. Booth’s 
book, their scheme will be ruined this way. 
For that system can have no pretension at 
all to truth, which in its consequences mili- 
tates against female communion, and the 
very existence of the church of God; and 
moreover exhibits the patron of it under the 
shape of a shifter, prevaricator, and self-con- 
tradictor. But if, on the other hand, they 
alter their mode of defence so as to avoid 
these consequences, their scheme will be 
ruined that way; for then, they will lose 
those very arguments by which they endea- 
vour to support it. So that let a Baptist, 
Mr. Booth for instance, take which way he 
will, his scheme will either be overwhelmed 
with its own consequences, or it will fall for 
want of arguments. 

Thus much I say at present concerning the 
Appendix; and shall now commit it into the 
hands of God, the eternal patron of truth, and 
to every reader’s judgment and conscience in 
his sight. 


180 OF THE MODE 


A CASE 


SUBMITTED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF BAPTISTS. 


Berore I enter on the Mode of Baptism, I 
would take the liberty of proposing to my 
Baptist friends a plain case; not so much a 
case of conscience as a case of criticism. 
That on which this case is founded is as fol- 
lows: it is well known that under the pre- 
sent dispensation there are two instituted or- 
dinances; the one in Scripture is expressed 
by the term deiynon, a supper, the other by 
baptisma, baptism. The proper and obvi- 
ous meaning of deipnon is a feast or a com- 
mon meal, Mark vi. 21; John xxi. 22; the 
proper meaning of baptisma is said to be 
the immersion of the whole body. The case 
then is this: 

If, because the proper meaning of the term 
baptisma, baptism, is the immersion of the 
whole body, a person, who is not immersed, 
cannot be said to have been baptized, since 
nothing short of immersion amounts to the 
full import of the word baptism ;—if this be 
true, I should be glad to know whether as 
deipnon, a supper, properly means a feast 
or common meal, a person who, in the use 
of that ordinance, takes only a piece of 
bread of half an inch square, and drinks a 
tablespoonfull of wine, which is neither a 
feast nor a common meal, and so does not 
come up to the proper meaning of the word, 


OF BAPTISM. 181 


can be said to have received the Lord’s 
Supper? 

* Mr. Booth, I presume, saw this in Mr. 

Piries’ book, but has not taken any notice of 

it; I therefore request some Baptist friend to 

turn his attention to it. , 


—~— 


THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 


Ir appears to me, from the following circum- 
stance, that the Baptists are not so tenacious 
of the mode as of the subject of baptism. I 
had been convinced more than four years 
ago, in reading Dr. Williams’ book, that im- 
mersion was not essential to baptism; and 
though I preached since that period several 
baptizing sermons without saying a word 
about the mode, I never heard of any of our 
Baptist friends that ever observed that omis- 
sion ; whereas, on the contrary, had I insisted 
on the mode, and omitted the subject, I have 
not a doubt but they would have noticed it 
in the first sermon. And I remember some 
years back to have heard a Baptist minister 
say, that the mode of baptism, by immersion. 
only, did not appear equally plain as the sub- 
ject. Indeed I am persuaded that if it can 
be made plain to the Baptists that it is wrong 
to reject an infant, they will soon give up the 
idea of immersion only ; and it is for this rea- 
son that I have been the more diffuse on the 
subject, and shall now be short on the mode. 
16 


182 OF THE MODE 


All our knowledge of the manner of bap- 
tizing must, at this distance of time from the 
first institution, be collected from the word 
“ baptize,”’ the circumstances of baptism, and 
the allusions of Scripture to that ordinance. 
These three I will endeavour to examine im- 
partially, confining myself to Scripture, and 
the word made use of in the institution. The 
question, on which this examination is to 
proceed, is this: is immersion essential to 
baptism? or, in other words, is there no bap- 
tism but what is by immersion? I shall begin 
. the inquiry with that precise term which the 
Scriptures always use when this ordinance 
is spoke of, namely baptizo, and examine 
those places in which it occurs either as a 
noun or a verb, where the ordinance is not 
intended. 

There is a word commonly introduced into 
this debate, viz. bapto, though it is never 
used in Scripture, respecting this ordinance ; 
and this being the fact, I see no great pro- 
priety in bringing it into the debate at all; 
for let it mean what it may, it can signify 
nothing to the question in hand unless it had 
been used by the inspired writers to express 
this ordinance. I do not, however, shun this 
term because it would be unfavourable to 
my sentiment, but because I judge it best to 
examine that word, and that only, which the 
Holy Ghost, when speaking of this ordinance, 
has thought proper to adopt. » 

Nevertheless, that I may not omit it alto- 
gether, I would say thus much of the term 


OF BAPTISM. 183 


bapto, that itis a term of such latitude, that 
he who shall attempt to prove, from its use 
in various authors, an absolute and total im- 
mersion, will find he has undertaken that 
which he can never fairly perform. Of the 
truth of this assertion I would give the plain 
. reader a taste in the following instances. 
The term dap/o then is used to express, 

1. The throwing of a person into the mire. 
Job ix. 31. “Thou shalt plunge, (baptize) 
or make me foul in the mire.”’ 

2. A partial dipping. Matt. xxvi. 23. “ He 
that dippeth (baptizeth) his hand with mein . 
the dish,”’ 

3. A stained garment. Rev. xix.13. “A 
vesture dipped (baptized) stained with blood.” 

4. A human body wet with the dew. Dan. 
iv. 33. “His body was wet (baptized) by 
or from the dew of heaven.” 

5. The colouring a lake with the blood of 
a frog. Homer, “The lake was baptized, 
coloured, or stained with blood.’’ 

6. The smearing of the face with colours or 
washes. Aristophanes, “ He baptized, smear- 
ed [his face] with tawney washes ;”’ speak- 
ing of Magnes, the comedian, who used to 
colour his face instead of using a mask. 

7. The staining of the hand by pressing a 
substance ; Aristotle, “ Being pressed, it bap- 
tizes, stains the hand.’’ 

So various is the use of the term bapfo, 
that we can only view it as meaning to wet 
or stain, and that by whatever mode the na- 
ture of the thing to be wetted or stained may 


184 OF THE MODE 


require. And I can truly say I have often 
been heartily sick and sorry when I have 
observed persons of eminente for learning, 
especially Dr. Gale, labouring, in opposition 
to the very instances which they themselves 
had produced, to prove that this term in- 
tended immersion, total immersion, and no- 
thing else. But as this word is never used 
with respect to the ordinance in question, 
and can therefore give us no information 
concerning the mode of it, I shall immedi- 
ately dismiss it without further notice. 

I come now to consider the term baptizo, 
which is the only term made use of to ex- 
press this ordinance, and this I shall do by 
setting down those places where it is used as 
a verb or a noun when the ordinance is not 
intended. These places are as follow: Heb. 
ix. 10. “Which stood in meats and drinks 
and divers washings —divers baptisms.” 
Mark vii. 4. “And when they come from 
the market, except they wash (except they 
baptize) they eat not. And many other 
things there be which they have received to 
hold, as the washing, (baptisms) of cups and 
pots, brazen vessels and of tables.”” Luke xi. 
38. “And when the Pharisee saw it, he 
marvelled that he had not first washed, (bap- 
tized) before dinner.””? The word in these 
instances, is used, 

1. For those various ablutions among the 
Jews, by sprinkling, pouring, &c. 

2. For a custom among the Pharisees of 
washing before meals. 


OF BAPTISM. 185 


3. For a superstitious washing of house- 
hold furniture, cups, pots, &c. 

With these instances in view, I would pro- 
pose to the reader two questions : 

I. Is the word baptize used in these in- 
stances to express immersion only? The 
reader may observe that the very first in- 
stance proves itis not. The Apostle plainly 
expresses the Jewish ablutions by the term 
“ baptisms ;”? and any man, by looking into 
his Bible, and reading the account of the 
Jewish service, may see what kind of bap- 
tisms these were. Mr. Booth himself, in his 
answer to Dr. Williams, p. 347, will grant 
for the sake of argument, that the apostle 
uses the term baptisms in this place to denote 
pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion ; 
nor does he, in what he has advanced on the 
subject, deny this to have been the fact; and 
indeed a man must be very defective in point 
of modesty who will even attempt to deny 
this. Well then; if the word baptism is not 
used in these instances, as it is certain it is 
not, to express immersion only, I ask, in the 
next place—Is it used to express any im- 
mersion at all? I will apply this question to 
each of the instances: 

1. The Apostle speaks of the Jewish ser- 
vice, and says it stood in “divers baptisms.” 
I ask whether immersion of the whole body 
was any part of that service? It is clear 
that the Apostle, by the word “baptisms,” 
intended sprinkling and pouring; but I be- 
lieve it is not clear from any part of the 

HGic: 


186 OF THE MODE 


Jewish service, that any one was ordered to 
immerse himself, or to be immersed by an- 
other. If this, however, can be proved, it 
must then be granted that the Apostle uses 
the word “ baptisms’”’ to denote immersion as 
well as pouring and sprinkling; but if this 
cannot be proved, it will then be evident that 
no immersion at all is intended by the word 
baptisms. 

2. I will apply the question to the second 
case—the baptizing before meals. It is said, 
“that when they come from market, except 
they baptize they eat not;’’ and the “ Phari- 
see marvelled that our Lord did not baptize 
(that is, himself) befores dinner.” I ask, Is 
there any immersion at all here? The Phari- 
see marvelled that our Lord did not baptize 
himself before dinner—did he marvel that he 
did not immerse himself? ‘The Pharisees, 
when they come from market, except they 
baptize [themselves] they eat not—did they 
too immerse themselves every time they 
came from a market? I know it is not an 
impossible case ; but I am asking whether it 
is at all a probable thing? And if it be not, 
then it is improbable that the word baptize in 
these places should intend any immersion at 
all. Perhaps some one will say that nothing 
more is intended than the washing of hands, 
as this is agreeable to the tradition of the 
elders mentioned in Matt. xv. 2.; and it is 
well known that we dip our hands in order 
to wash them. Supposing this to be the fact, 
I reply, that if we dip our hands in order to 


OF BAPTISM. 187 


baptize [wash] them, then it is certain, that 
dipping and baptizing [washing] are differ- 
ent things ;—that baptizing [washing] is the 
end, and dipping a mean to that end;—that 
we only dip so much of our hands as may 
be necessary to baptize [wash] them ;—and 
that our dipping the hands in order to bap- 
tize them depends entirely on circumstances: 
e.g. If I baptize [wash] my hands in a ba- 
sin, I dip so much of them as may be neces- 
sary to baptize them; but if I baptize [wash] 
them at a spout, I do not dip them at all—I 
only receive the water as it falls, and bap- 
tize [wash] them without dipping. And it 
signifies nothing to, us how they baptized 
[washed] their hands, whether in a basin or 
at a spout; for the word “ baptize”? does not 
express the manner of doing, whether by im- 
mersion or affusion, but only the thing done, 
namely, “ washing.” 

3. I now carry the question to the third 
case—the superstitious baptizing [washing] 
of household furniture, cups, pots, brazen 
vessels, and tables. Cups; these, it appears 
from the name, were drinking vessels; pots; 
those vessels out of which wine or water 
was poured, pitchers or flagons. Brazen 
vessels, were, it is probable, for culinary 
uses, for boiling. Tables, some take this 
word as it is here rendered, others think it 
means those seats or benches on which they 
sat at meals; and these are sometimes called 
“ Jectt”’ beds, perhaps from the leaning pos- 
ture then in use. The Jews, our Lord ob- 


188 OF THE MODE 


serves, held and practised the baptizing of 
these ; now we ask, Does the word baptize 
in this place express any immersion ? 

These things, it is plain, were baptized 
[washed ;] but how they were baptized, no 
creature living can determine. One thing, 
however, may be remarked, which is, that 
all these articles might very conveniently be 
baptized [washed] by pouring, &c. while, on 
the contrary, it would have been very in- 
convenient, and even improper, to baptize 
[wash] others, wiz. the brazen vessels and 
tables, by immersion. It is, I believe, a 
general opinion that some of these things 
were baptized by dipping—as the cups and 
pots, and that others were baptized [washed] 
by pouring, sprinkling, &c. And hence many 
learned men have considered the word bap- 
tize as expressing all these modes. In this, 
however, they appear to me to have. been 
mistaken; for the word baptize, [wash] 
though it has been applied to all modes of 
washing, is not properly expressive of any 
mode, but intends only the washing itself, 
which may be done by either. 

The conclusion, therefore, from these in- 
stances, is this: it is evident that the word 
baptize does not intend immersion only ; the 
various sprinklings, pourings, &c. among the 
Jews are plainly called “baptism.” Nay, 
further, it is not certain that there was any 
immersion at all in either of the baptisms 
[washings] before us; and it is very certain 
that whether these persons and things were 


OF BAPTISM. 189 


baptized by immersion, aspersion, or affu- 
sion, the word baptize does not express 
either of the modes by which any person 
or thing was washed, but only the washing 
itself. And though there has been much 
dispute about the word “baptize,” some 
affirming it to mean immersion only, others 
aspersion and affusion as well as immersion, 
yet, properly speaking, it means neither of 
them. It has indeed been used for all the 
modes of washing—sprinkling, pouring, and 
immersing; whereas it does not express the 
one nor the other, but washing only; and 
this may be done in either of the modes; 
and, therefore, when we read of any person 
or thing being baptized, we cannot conclude 
from the word itself whether it was done by 
affusion, aspersion, or immersion. 

As the word “ baptize,”’ which means sim- 
ply to wash, does not determine the mode in 
which persons should receive baptism, I will 
attend in the next place, to the circumstances 
of that ordinance. Those I mean to consider 
are, first, the places where baptism was ad- 
ministered, and, secondly, the preparations 
for baptism. 

1. The places chosen for this ordinance 
Were, among others, the river Jordan, and 
Enon near Salim, where, it is said, there 
Were many waters. This is a circumstance 
that appears to weigh on the side of immer- 
sion; and if we give it that weight in the 
seale of reason, for which the Baptists con- 
tend, it will amount to this—it is a presump- 


190 OF THE MODE 


tive, but not a certain, proof of immersion. 
That it is a presumptive proof appears by 
this—that here was, as far as we know, a 
fair opportunity for immersion; that it is no 
more than a presumptive proof is evident 
from hence—that all this might be, and yet 
no immersion. If we say they baptized in 
or ata river, therefore they baptized by im- 
mersion, this would be a good consequence 
if it were impossible to baptize at or in a 
river in any other way; but since a person 
can baptize in or at a river by affusion as 
well as immersion, we can only draw a con- 
clusion in favour of immersion by an act of 
the fancy. However, let it be a proof of the 
presumptive kind, and it cannot possibly be 
any thing more. 

Now, as it is the nature of presumptive 
proof to admit of increase or diminution, 
this, like all proof of the same kind, may be 
increased or diminished. That, on the one 
hand, which serves to increase the presump- 
tion on the side of immersion, is this: that 
of all who administer baptism, there are 
none at this time (as far as 1 know) that 
baptize in or at a river, but such as use im- 
mersion. It may indeed be said that all this 
may be accounted for. The case of John 
differed very much from ours; he had vast 
congregations and many to baptize, and no 
house fit to contain them: so that his choos- 
ing a river, though he had baptized by affu- 
sion, would, in his case, have been, on the 
whole, the wisest plan. And although per- 


OF BAPTISM. 191 


sons who baptize by affusion, do not now go 
to a river, yet were they circumstanced, with 
respect to their congregations and accom- 
modations, as John was, they would, in their 
choice of place, act in the same manner he 
did. Something like this, I suppose, might 
be said, but I was willing to give the pre- 
sumption all its force. 

On the other hand, the presumption may 
be diminished by observing, first, that there 
were many baptizings which do not appear 
to have taken place at or in any river—as 
that of Paul, of the jailer, of Cornelius, of 
those of Samaria, and of the three thousand. 
And, secondly, there is another thing: it can- 
not be proved with certainty that even those 
who were baptized in or at Jordan, Enon, 
&c. were—I will not say totally immersed, 
but that they were so much as in the water 
at all, Whoever is acquainted with the in- 
determinate sense of the prepositions en, e¢is* 
ek, and apo, on which this proof must depend, 
will be very sensible of this. These occur 
in the following Scriptures: Matt. iii. 6. 
“They were baptized of him, en to Jorda- 
nee, in Jordan ;”?—en means not only “in,” 
but “nigh, near, at, by,” &c. Acts vill. 38, 
«“ They went down both, ezs fo hudor, into the 
water ;” but ezs, besides “ into,’’ often means 


* John xx. 4, 5, came first to [eis] the sepulchre—Yet went 
he not in. From which it is evident that eis signifies to as 
well as into; and therefore to pretend to determine the mode 
of baptism from the signification of that word is trifling. 


192 OF THE MODE 


“ towards, near,” &c. Matt. iii. 16. “And 
Jesus when he was baptized, went up straight- 
way, apo tou hudatos, out of the water.’ 
Acts vill. 39. “ And when they were come 
up,ek tou hudatos, out of the water ;””—apo 
and ek very often signify “from.” So that 
whereas it is read in our translation — in 
Jordan, into the water, out of the water, it 
will read as well in the Greek—at Jordan, 
to the water, from the water. This is a truth 
beyond all dispute, and well known to every 
one who is at all conversant with the Greek. 
And whoever duly considers this will easily 
be persuaded that it is utterly impossible to 
prove that any one, who is said in Scripture 
to have been baptized, was so much as in the 
water at all, or that he even wet the sole of 
his foot. 

2. The other circumstance relates to a pre- 
paration for the ordinance. Every one who 
has been accustomed to baptize by immer- 
sion, must certainly know, that it is neces- 
sary, with respect to decency and safety, to 
change the dresses, and to have separate 
apartments for men and women. This is 
evidently necessary, whether we baptize in 
a river, or in a baptistry. Now it is certain, 
that although we read of many baptizings, 
there is not the least intimation given either 
of changing the dress, or of any suitable ac- 
commodation for the different sexes. This, 
though a circumstance that weighs against 
immersion, I consider as being, like the other, 
only of the presumptive kind. For, no doubt 


OF BAPTISM. 193 


- it would be very illogical to say, we read of 
no change of dress, or separate apartments 
for baptizing, therefore there was no immer- 
sion. 

This presumption, like the other, may be 
made stronger or weaker. It may be made 
weaker in this way; that though we read of 
no changing of garments, or any separate 
apartments, yet there might have been both; 
as many things might have been done of 
which the Scriptures take no notice. On the 
other side, the presumption may be made 
stronger, by observing that there are other 
cases in’which mention is made of garments, 
where there could be no more necessity of 
mentioning them, than in the case of baptism ; 
supposing baptism to have been performed 
by immersion. To instance only in two 
cases; when our Lord washed his disciples’ 
feet, it is said, he laid aside his garments. 
And Luke, speaking of those who stoned 
Stephen, says, “they laid down their clothes 
at a young man’s feet, whose name was 
Saul.”? Now if the Scriptures take notice 
of the putting off of garments for the purpose 
of washing feet, and stoning a man to death; 
how comes it to pass, that as thousands, upon 
supposition they were baptized by immersion, 
must entirely have changed their garments, 
or have done worse, the Scriptures should 
not drop a single hint about it? Both these 
presumptions may be tossed and turned, and 
strengthened and weakened, just as fancy 

17 


194 OF THE MODE 


may dictate; whereas, when all is said and 
done, they are no more than presumptions 
still. And when we have only presumption 
in the premises, we can have nothing more 
than presumption in the conclusion. 

To conclude this part respecting the cir- 
cumstances of baptism, I will only say, we 
have here a goodly combat; presumption 
contending with presumption. One presump- 
tion says, that as they sometimes made use 
of a river for baptizing, it is likely they bap- 
tized by immersion. The other presumption 
answers, that since it does not appear, that 
the sexes were decently accommodated for 
immersion, or that there was any changing 
of garments, it is therefore likely they did 
not immerse. That presumption replies, that 
the sexes might be very decently accommo- 
dated with change of dress, and separate 
apartments, though the Scriptures should no- 
tice neither. This presumption affirms, that 
persons might be baptized in or at a river, 
and yet no immersion after all. 

Now instead of determining which of these 
presumptions is the stronger; we may learn 
thus much from the circumstances of bap- 
tism, and indeed it is all we can learn, and 
that is, that it is utterly impossible to deter- 
mine, from any information they give, whe- 
ther baptized persons were immersed or not. 
Nay, so far are circumstances from settling 
this point, that we cannot be certain there 
was a single person of all the baptized, who 


OF BAPTISM. 195 


went into the water even ankle deep. This 
is the true state of facts as they strike me, 
and all beyond this is the flight of fancy. 

Since neither the term “ baptize,’’ nor yet 
the circumstances of baptism, determine any 
thing concerning the mode, whether it is im- 
mersion or affusion; I shall in the next place 
consider the allusions to that ordinance. I 
know not whether I speak accurately when 
I call them allusions; but the consequence 
either way is not material, as every one will 
easily understand what I intend. Now these 
allusions being of two kinds, I will, for the 
sake of distinction, and without any design 
of offence, call one the “ Baptist allusion,” 
and the other the “ Pedobaptist allusion.”’ I 
begin with, 

I. The Baptist allusion. The reader will 
find this in Rom. vi. 4. “Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death,” &c. 
A similar phrase occurs in Col. ii. 12. The 
Baptists think there is an allusion in these 
words to the manner of baptizing; and as 
the apostle speaks of being buried with him, 
they conclude the mode to have been im- 
“mersion. On this conclusion of theirs, 

1. I observe that. these words are an in- 
ference from the third verse, in which the 
apostle says, “ Know ye not that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
baptized into his death? ‘Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism.”? We have 
here three things; 1. a baptizing into Jesus 
Christ; 2. into his death; 3. into his burial: 


196 OF THE MODE 


and the last, is made the consequence of the 
first. Therefore we are buried with him, 
because we were baptized into him. To 
form the antithesis, we must distinguish be- 
tween the life and death of Christ; and then 
it will be, We are baptized first into the life 
of Christ, then into the death of Christ, and 
last of all into his burial. We are brought 
by baptism into his life, into his death, and 
into his burial. Now, if baptism bring us 
into each of these, and one of them, as the 
Baptists say, is an allusion to the mode of 
baptizing, then, for the same reason, so must 
the other two. That is, his life must allude 
to the mode, so must his death, and so must 
his burial; and the reason is, because bap- 
tism unites us to him in each of these. And 
if all these are to allude to the mode, I should 
be glad to know, what kind of mode it must 
at last be, which is to bear a resemblance to 
every one. The life of Christ was action, . 
his death was a crucifixion, his burial was 
the inclosing of his body in a cavity of the 
rock. The mode, therefore, must be three- 
fold; it must represent action, crucifixion, 
and inclosing in a rock; because, to pursue 
the notion of the Baptists, his life, death, 
and burial must all have an allusion to the 
mode of baptism. 

There is no sect, I should suppose, that 
uses a mode of baptism to which all these 
will agree. The Romanists use salt, oil, and 
spittle ; but whether they intend an allusion 
to the life of Christ, I cannot take upon me 


OF BAPTISM. 197 


to affirm. Yet, as they must have some al- 
lusion, the salt may allude to his life of 
teaching; the spittle to his life of miracles; 
and the oil to his life of munificence. The 
clergy of the church of England use the sign 
of the cross; and this is to allude to the cru- 
cifixion of Christ. The Baptists use immer- 
sion; and this is to allude to the burial of 
Christ. Now, if we could unite all these in 
one, we should have a tolerable allusion to 
our Lord’s life, death, and burial; but when 
each is taken separately, there is a deficiency 
in point of allusion. The English clergy are 
deficient in alluding only to the crucifixion ; 
but not to the life and burial. The Roman- 
ists are deficient in alluding only to the life 
and crucifixion; but not to the burial. The 
Baptists too are deficient in alluding to the 
burial only; but not to the life and crucifixion. 
I know not whether these different commu- 
nities take their document from this part of 
holy writ; but certainly they have the same 
ground if they choose to reason in the same 
way. But as the Baptists avowedly do this, 
and are at the same time so deficient in the 
business of allusion, it would become them 
to set about a reform in the mode of their 
baptism; it being at present wanting in two 
articles, viz. the life and crucifixion, z. e. the 
sign-of the cross, and salt, &c. 

That the absurdity of supposing an allu- 
sion in this place to the mode of baptism may 
appear in a still stronger light, I would ob- 
serve, that what the apostle calls, in ver. 3, 

17* 


198 OF THE MODE 


a being baptized into the death of Christ, he 
expresses in ver. 5, by being planted toge- 
ther in the likeness of his death. This will 
be evident to any one who examines the 
place. Now if any man is disposed, after 
the method of the Baptists, to pick up allu- 
sions’ to the mode of baptism, here are two 
topics ready at hand, and he may take both, 
or either, as he pleases. It is usual with the 
Baptists, when contending for the mode of 
baptism, to affirm that the apostle calls bap- 
tism a burial; and hence they infer that im- 
mersion must be the mode. This, however, 
is affirming what is not true ; for the apostle 
never, in any of his writings, calls “ baptism 
a burial.”? But on the contrary, he does in 
this verse evidently speak of it under the no- 
tion of planting; and says, We are planted 
in the likeness of his death. Here thén, 
upon the Baptist plan, are two allusions— 
planting, and crucifixion. There are none, 
I believe, who make planting an allusion to 
the mode of baptism; but should this be at- 
tempted by any, they will have this one ad- 
vantage which the Baptists are destitute of ; 
and that is, that whereas baptism is no where 
called a burial, it is in this place plainly call- 
ed a planting. Now, if we suppose a per- 
son reasoning upon the plan of the Baptists, 
he will say, that as the apostle calls baptism 
a planting, he must allude to the mode in 
which that ordinance was administered ; and 
every one, who is at all acquainted with the 
art of planting, will easily guess what kind 


OF BAPTISM. 199 


of mode that must be, to which it alludes. 
Were this only adopted, and it may be adopt- 
ed with greater advantage than the Baptist 
plan, we should probabiy hear of some con- 
tention about the mode of baptism, between 
those who immerse and those who only 
plant; and in this case I can clearly see that 
victory will crown the planters. 

There is in the same way another allusion 
in this verse to the mode of baptism; I have 
mentioned it before, but do it again on ac- 
count of its superior evidence to that allusion 
of the Baptists. The apostle says, we are 
planted, that is, baptized, in the likeness of 
his death. Now, taking this for an allusion 
to the mode of baptism, the argument for the 
sign of the cross will be incomparably strong- 
er than that of the Baptists for immersion. 
I say incomparably stronger; for whereas it 
is only said in the fourth verse, We are bu- 
ried with him dy baptism; it is said in this 
verse, We are planted [baptized] in the like- 
hess of his death: there is nothing about 
similitude mentioned in their allusion; but 
here the word “likeness” is actually used. 
The argument, therefore, in favour of the 
sign of the cross, will, in the Baptist way of 
arguing, far outweigh that in favour of im- 
mersion. And how much soever the Bap- 
tists may despise that ceremony, it is evi- 
dently better founded in this contest than 
their own. So that if their argument from 
this place be good for immersion, the other 
is far better for the sign of the cross. Upon 


200 OF THE MODE 


the whole, the examination of this place con- 
vinces me of nothing so much as this, that 
both the Baptists in general, and myself in 
particular, have been carried away with the 
mere sound of a word, even to the neglect of 
the sense and scope of the truth of God. 

2, Leaving, therefore, the whimsical in- 
terpretation of the Baptists to itself, it may 
be observed, in order that we may the better 
enter into the apostle’s design, that when he 
says, “ we are buried with him, by baptism,” 
he makes baptism to be the instrumental 
cause of burial. This will appear plain by 
asking this question; By what are we buried 
with him? The answer is, By baptism. And 
indeed baptism is made the instrumental 
cause in each case. If we ask, How are we 
brought into Jesus Christ? Answer—By bap- 
tism: “baptized into Jesus Christ.” How 
are we brought into his death? Answer—By 
baptism: “baptized into his death.” How 
are we brought into his burial? Answer— 
By baptism: “buried with him by,baptism.” 
If, therefore, the union in life, death, and 
burial, be brought about by baptism, then 
baptism is the instrumental cause of this 
union; and then the very idea of allusion is 
entirely lost, and they present themselves to 
our view under the notion of cause and effect. 
Baptism is made the cause, and union in the 
life, death, and burial, the effect. 

Now this being the case, instead of hunting 
after allusions, by which baptism will be any 
thing or nothing, we must attend to that 


OF BAPTISM. 201 


adequacy or proportion in the cause, by vir- 
tue of which this effect is to be produced. 
This adequacy is not formally in outward 
baptism, which is an emblem, and no more 
than an emblem, of the baptism of the Holy 
, Spirit; but merely in the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, of which the other is an emblem. 
1 Cor, xii. 13. It is, indeed, the nature and 
design of both to bring persons into union 
with Jesus Christ; but then, the union will 
be only of the same kind with the baptism. 
If the baptism be that of the Holy Spirit, it 
brings about an internal, vital union with 
Jesus Christ; but if it be only an outward 
baptism, the union will only be visible and 
external. But as the outward baptism is an 
emblem of the inward and vital, the judg- 
ment of charity presumes, unless there be 
good proof to the contrary, that they who 
voluntarily receive the former, are also pos- 
sessed of the latter. It is according to this 
judgment of charity, the apostle addresses 
the Romans: he supposes baptized persons 
to be really baptized into Jesus Christ; and 
then, by virtue of that union, they live, they 
die, they are buried, they are raised again, 
and walk with Christ in newness of life. ~All 
‘which the apostle expresses in these em- 
phatic words :—our old man is crucified with 
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, 
that henceforth we should not serve sin— 
Dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord— Like as 
Christ was raised from the dead, by the glo- 


202 OF THE MODE 


ry of the Father, even so we also should walk 
in newness of life. The scope of the apostle 
is to show the vital influence of union with 
Christ, of which baptism is theemblem. And 
as soon as any one enters fairly into the apos- 
tle’s scope, the insignificant idea of allusion 
to the mode of baptism disappears, and, to 
use Mr. Booth’s phrase, hides its impertinent 
head.—Thus ,much for the Baptist allusion. 
I shall next notice, 

II. The Pedobaptist allusion, According 
to this, the mode of communicating the grace 
of the Holy Spirit to the soul, and that of 
applying the baptismal water to the body, 
are viewed as corresponding with each other. 
The considerations which lead to this, are 
such as follow :—1. They both agree in name. 
The influences of the Holy Spirit on the soul 
are called “ baptism,’”’ and so likewise is the 
external application of water. The term 
baptism, when used to express the influences 
of the Holy Spirit, takes in both his extra- 
ordinary and saving influences, Acts i. 5; 
1 Cor. xii. 13. And as these have sometimes 
taken place in the same persons, the term 
“baptize”? has been used to express both, 
Acts x. 44—46, compared with Acts xi. 16— 
18. 2. They are often associated in Scrip- 
ture. How commonly do we read such 
words as these, “I indeed have baptized you 
with water; but he shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost.”? The reader will find this 
form of speech in the following places: Matt. 
iii. 11. Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John i. 33. 


OF BAPTISM. 203 


Acts i. 53; xi. 16. 3. Their mode of commu- 
nication is expressed in the same way: “I 
baptize you with water, but he shall baptize 
you with the Holy Ghost.” And this is 
done in all the places, only with this differ- 
ence, that Luke omits the preposition in one 
member, and there it is understood. 4. Bap- 
tism with water, is an emblem of baptism 
with the Holy Ghost. The application of 
water to the body, as noting the putting 
away the filth of the flesh, shadows forth the 
influence of the Holy Spirit, which, being 
imparted to the soul, produces the answer of 
a good conscience towards God. 

Now, if these two pass under the same 
name; if both are frequently united in Scrip- 
ture ; if the one be an emblem of the other; 
and if the mode of communication in each 
baptism be expressed in the same way; then, 
the way to arrive at a clear view of the mode 
of outward baptism, is to observe in what 
manner the baptism of the Holy Spirit is de- 
scribed. This will lead us to consult a lexi- 
con of very superior kind, a lexicon worth 
more than five hundred; and, what is more, 
it is the plain, unlettered man’s lexicon, and 
its title is, “ The lively oracles of God.”? The 
article we are to seek for, is the term baptize. 
Tow does this lexicon define baptizare, to 
baptize? Answer—Baptizare est superve- 
nire, illabi, effundere—plainly, to baptize is 
—to come upon, Acts i. 5.—to shed forth, 
Acts il. 33.—to fall upon, Acts xi. 15.—to 
pour out, Acts il. 17.—x. 45. That is, in 


204 OF THE MODE 


this baptism, the grace of the Holy Spirit 
comes upon—falls upon—is shed forth—is 
poured out, namely, on the soul. This is the 
account this lexicon gives of the word “ bap- 
tize.? 

Mr. Booth instead of paying a due atten- 
tion to this lexicon, has adopted a method 
which, when properly adverted to, will do 
no credit, to him or his book. His professed 
design is to prove that the term “ baptize’ 
means immersion, immersion only, and no- 
thing else. But how does he doit? Why, 
he quotes a number of authors, who, as he 
himself says, understood the term to mean 
immersion, pouring, and sprinkling; and these 
quotations he calls concessions. Concessions 
of what? That the word meant immersion 
only? If so, he made them concede what 
they never did concede, and what they had 
no thought of conceding. If they made no 
concession, as he acknowledges they did not, 
that the term baptize signified immersion 
only, what honesty could there be in pro- 
ducing them at all? Mr. Booth’s talent is 
quotation, and therefore he must quote; but, 
at the same time, it is a shame to abuse the 
_ living or the dead, and it is a bad cause that 
requires it; for what else is it but abusing an 
author, when he is introduced as granting 
that which in fact he never did grant ? 

But had Mr. Booth consulted the lexicon I 
am speaking of, it might have freed him from 
the necessity of using that little art which one 
cannot observe in a disputant with any de- 


OF BAPTISM. 205 


gree of pleasure. The authors he has con- 
sulted, if they had been all on his side, (and 
I question whether any one was beside the 
Quakers) could only have told him how men 
understood the word; but this lexicon would 
have showed him how God himself uses it; 
and if we receive the witness of men, the 
witness of God is greater. I ask, What does 
God witness concerning the term baptize? 
Answer—From the passages before cited it 
is evident he witnesses this—that the term 
strictly and properly means to wash, to pu- 
rify. What does God witness concerning the 
mode of applying the purifying matter? An- 
swer—lIt comes upon, falls upon, is shed forth, 
is poured out.—Why then, as water baptism 
is an emblem of this, and as the mode of ap- 
plication in both cases is expressed in the 
same way, we have a witness on the side of 
pouring and sprinkling in baptism infinite- 
ly more certain than that of all the lexico- 
graphers and critics in the world. What are 
Mr. Booth’s eighty abused critics, even sup- 
posing they had all been on his side, though I 
doubt whether he had one out of the eighty ; 
and even suppose he had eight hundred more, 
what, I say, are all these when compared to 
the all-wise God* expounding and defining 
of his own words? Mr. Booth has a Talmud 
of his own, in which he studies circumcision, 
and ill-treated critics, with whom he imposes 
on the public in the-article of baptism; and 
though perhaps he may not yet be ashamed 
of his Talmud, or his treatment, I believe the 
18 
4 


206 OF THE MODE 


time will come when he will be ashamed of 
both. 

Notwithstanding the Scriptures, when 
speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
make use of the phrases—come upon—fall 
upon—shed forth—poured out, Mr. Booth, to 
evade the force of this as it respects the mode 
of baptizing, has recourse to two miserable 
shifts. In one case he would set aside the 
allusion to the mode, and in the other he 
would make it agree with immersion; and 
as these are somewhat curious, I cannot very 
well close the subject without taking notice 
of them. 

1. To set aside the allusion, he takes the 
following course in his answer to Dr. Wil- 
liams. Page 341, he says, “Dr. Williams 
argues in favour of pouring and of sprinkling 
from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus he 
speaks: I scruple not to assert it, there is no 
object whatever in all the New Testament so 
frequently and so explicitly signified by bap- 
tism as these divine influences ;” referring to 
Matt. iii. 11.; Mark i. 8, 9.; Luke iii. 16. 21, 
22; and several other places. Mr. Booth, in 
answer, says, p. 342, “ But those passages of 
Seripture to which he refers, regard that 
copious and extraordinary effusion (effusion, 
7. e. pouring out) of the Holy Spirit which was 
received by the Apostles and first disciples of 
our Lord soon after his ascension into heaven.” 
The truth is, the term “ baptize,” when ap- 
plied to the Holy Spirit, is used to denote 
both his extraordinary and ordinary influ- 


OF BAPTISM. 207 


ences, even those by which the mind is re- 
newed and united to Christ ; and so baptism 
by affusion is the most expressive emblem of 
the communication of these influences, more 
especially as the mode of application is ex- 
pressed in the same way, and the one is fairly 
an emblem of the other. 

But Mr. Booth does not seem willing to 
admit that one baptism is an emblem of the 
other—I say, ‘‘ seem willing,’’ for I protest I 
do not know, though I have his book before 
my eyes, and have looked at it half an hour, 
whether he means to admit or deny it. That 
which seems the most evident is, he, wishes, 
by any means, to get rid of it, lose it, put it 
out of sight, forget it himself, and make his 
reader do so too; but then how is this to be 
done? Done! why, by the assistance of his 
old impartial friends the Quakers. He sug- 
gests that our viewing water baptism as an 
emblem of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
will operate against its perpetuity. To evince 
this he introduces the Quakers as reasoning 
in the following manner: “water baptism 
was divinely appointed, and continued in 
force till the death of Christ; but as that rite 
had for its object the descent of the Holy 
Spirit and his divine influences, no sooner 
was the promised Spirit vouchsafed to our 
Lord’s disciples, than the obligation to re- 
gard water baptism entirely ceased. For 
baptism in water being only an emblem of 
the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit, 
why should the former be continued after 


208 OF THE MODE 


the latter has taken place?” This, he says, 
or something like it, if he mistakes not, is 
the Quakers’ principal argument; and, for 
aught he perceives, it is equally forcible with 
that of his opponent. 

I confess I am not sufficiently versed in the 
Quakers’ mode of reasoning to know whether 
Mr. Booth has done them justice. He first 
makes them say that baptism continued till 
the death of Christ, and then that the obliga- 
tion to regard it ceased when the promised 
Spirit was vouchsafed. So there are two 
periods for the expiration of baptism. But I 
have no dispute with the Quakers; I know 
they are only brought in here as a blind, 
that Mr. Booth, by getting behind them, might 
withdraw more easily. Iam persuaded he 
does not approve of their argument—he only 
wanted to get rid of the allusion, and he has 
got rid of it; but it is in the same way as 
the Quakers get rid of the two ordinances. 
Nay, far worse; for they do this by argu- 
ments which they deem good, but Mr. Booth 
has done it by such reasoning as he himself 
would be ashamed to adopt. This is Mr. 
Booth’s miserable way of getting rid of the 
allusion, viz. by giving the reader a Quaker’s 
argument. I will now advert to his other 
shift, by which, 

2. He attempts to make the allusion agree 
with immersion. The mode, as I have be- 
fore said, of communicating the influence of 
the Holy Spirit, is in Scripture expressed by 
coming upon—falling upon—shedding forth, 


OF BAPTISM. 209 


—pouring out, and this mode of communi- 
cation is expressly called baptizing. Now, 
while most persons have considered the bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit as favouring affusion, 
Mr. Booth will undertake to show that it is 
expressive of that idea for which he contends, 
namely, immersion. This is an attempt in 
which I could wish him much success; for if 
he can make it appear that pouring out, and 
immersing into, are the same thing, then 
neither will he have any reason to complain 
of those that pour, nor will those who pour 
have any reason to complain of him. I fear 
it will prove a hard task; let us hear him, 
however. 

In vol. i. p. 101, he speaks of “an elec- 
trical bath, so called, because the electrical 
fluid surrounds the patient.’? Well,and what 
then? “This philosophical document re- 
minds me of the sacred historian’s language, 
where, narrating the fact under considera- 
tion, thus he speaks: ‘And when the day 
of Pentecost was fully come, they were 
all with one accord in one place. And sud- 
denly there came a sound from heaven as 
of a rushing mighty wind, and it ritLEeD 
ALL THE HOUSE WHERE THEY WERE SIT- 
Tine. And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each 
of them. And they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost.” Now, says he, if the language 
of medical electricity be just, it cannot be 
absurd, nay, it seems highly rational, to un- 
derstand this language of inspiration, as ex- 

16'* 


210 OF THE MODE 


pressive of that idea [immersion] for which 
we contend. Was the Holy Spirit poured 
out? Did the Holy Spirit fall upon the apos- 
tles and others at that memorable time? It 
was in such a manner and to such a degree, 
that they were, like a patient in the electric 
bath, as if immersed in it.”? 

This electric bath is a pretty fancy, a 
happy invention for Mr. Booth; it is well he 
did not live before it was found out, for then 
what a fine thought would have been lost! 
Though the Holy Spirit fell upon, was 
poured out, yet, says he, it was in such a 
manner and to such a degree, that they 
were, like a patient in the electric bath, as if 
immersed in it, that is, immersed in the Holy 
Spirit. Most persons, I suppose, when they 
read of the Holy Spirit falling upon any one, 
understand it to mean the influence of that 
Spirit coming upon the soul; but Mr. Booth 
speaks as if the Holy Ghost, or his influence, 
fell on the outside of the apostles, and so 
surrounded their bodies like an electric bath. 
And to show he intended this, he has put 
these words in large capitals, it “ FILLED ALL 
THE HOUSE WHERE THEY WERE SITTING.” 
Then they were immersed in something 
which filled the house; I ask, what was that 
something? In English it is expressed by 
the pronoun “it’?—it filled the house; the 
Greek has no pronoun. Well, what is the 
antecedent to “it?’? I answer, the word 
“sound.”? The sound, which was as a rushing 
mighty wind, filled all the house where they 


OF BAPTISM. 211 


were sitting. The word in the Greek is, 
eechos, an echo, a reverberating sound. Mr. 
Booth’s electric bath was, after all, nothing 
more than an echo. He has been very silent 
about this electric fluid; either he did not 
know what it was, or he was not complai- 
sant enough to tell us. The loss, however, 
is not great; we have found it out without. 
him. It was an echo, then, that filled all the 
house ; and the apostles, being immersed in 
sound, were surrounded by the echo, like a 
patient in an electric bath. This is the 
beauty of sticking close to the primary mean- 
ing of the term, as Mr. Booth calls it; and so 
tenacious is he of his primary meaning, that 
he does not care in what people are im- 
mersed, so they are but immersed in some- 
thing. 

To be baptized by the Holy Spirit is to 
receive his influence on the heart and mind ; 
but this baptism, according to Mr. Booth, is 
to have the body surrounded by an echo. Is 
then the influence of the Spirit falling upon 
the heart, and a reverberating sound sur- 
rounding the body, the same thing? Mr. Booth 
is a dreadful confounder of things that differ ! 
He said once that an obedient subject of the 
civil government and a complete church 
member were the same thing; does he think 
too that the influence of the Holy Ghost is 
nothing more than an echo?—So much for 
the electric bath and the Quaker’s argument ? 
These are Mr. Booth’s two miserable shifts, 
by which he would evade the argument from “ 


212 OF THE MODE 


the Holy Spirit’s baptism in favour of affu- 
sion; and miserable ones they are as ever 
made their appearance in public. 

I shall now close what I mean to say on 
the mode, by collecting the particulars, and 
placing them in one view. The word bap- 
tizo, used for this ordinance, means washing 
only, but not any mode of washing: it means 
neither dipping, pouring, nor sprinkling ; for 
these are only different ways of washing, 7. e. 
baptizing. They, therefore, who say that 
the word rantism [sprinkling] is not the same 
as baptism, say nothing but what is very 
right; for rantize differs from baptize, as the 
manner of doing differs from the thing done ; 
and the same is true of immersion and pour- 
ing. Yet, at the same time, it must be ob- 
served that the word baptism is used in Serip- 
ture where pouring and sprinkling are evi- 
dently intended; while it cannot be proved 
that it is ever used either in the New Testa- 
ment or in the Septuagint where immersion 
took place. The New Testament I have ex- 
amined ; I will here just notice the two places 
where it occurs in the Septuagint. 2 Kings, 
v. 14. And Naaman went down and baptized 
in Jordan. The English has it “ dipped,’ 
and this is the only place where baptize is 
translated “dip ;”? but whether there was an 
immersion of the whole body, or any part of 
it, is altogether uncertain. All we can be 
certain of is, that the prophet ordered him to 
wash, his servants advised him to wash, and 
he went down and baptized according to the 


- 


- OF BAPTISM. 213 


word of Elisha. Now there are two reasons 
which induce some to think he applied water 
to one part of his body only: 1. As he ex- 
pected the prophet to strike his hand over 
the place, and recover the leper, they con- 
clude he was leprous only in one part of his 
body, and that the water was applied to that 
part. 2. The command to wash seven times, 
they consider as referring to that part of the 
law of cleansing in which the leper is order- 
ed to be sprinkled; but, for my own part, I 
think it impossible to say in what manner he 
baptized. The other is merely figurative, 
expressive of a sense of God’s anger, and 
occurs in Isaiah xxi. 4. .“ And sin baptizes 
me ;’’ meaning the punishment due to sin, 
which is expressed by pouring out anger, 
fury, &c. on a person. From these premises 
the unforced conclusion is this: that, on the 
one hand, as the word baptize is expressive 
of no particular mode, nothing can be con- 
cluded from it in favour of one more than 
another; so, on the other hand, as the word 
has certainly been used for pouring and 
sprinkling, while there is no proof of its ever 
being used in Scripture for immersion, it does 
more naturally associate itself with affusion 
and aspersion. With regard to the circum- 
stances of baptism, they afford no certain 
proof on either side. We can do no more 
than presume, and this may be done on both 
sides. There is presumption for or against, 
and fancy, as it may happen to favour any 
one side, will form the conclusion; but as the 


214 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 


circumstances carry us no further than pre- 
sumption, no certain conclusion can be form- 
ed either for immersion or against it. The 
allusions, I observed, were of two kinds; the 
one I have called the Baptist allusion, the 
other the Pedobaptist allusion. The Baptist 
allusion is entirely founded in mistake, and 
that through a non-attention to the design and 
scope of the apostle; for in the same way as 
the Baptists make an allusion to immersion, 
the context will furnish allusions to other 
modes: and disputants, were they so inclined, 
might plead with more advantage for the 
sign of the cross, &c. than the Baptists can 
for immersion. The Pedobaptists’ allusion 
consists in this: they consider the two bap- 
tisms, the material and the spiritual, as being 
the one a shadow or figure of the other, and 
the mode of the material as resembling that 
of the spiritual. And, therefore, as divine 
influence in spiritual baptism is said to come 
upon—fall upon—to be shed forth—poured 
out, and as material baptism is to be a signi- 
ficant emblem of this, the allusion is decided- 
ly in favour of pouring and sprinkling. And 
that this is the true state of the matter ap- 
pears by this: that the Scriptures commonly 
join material and spiritual baptism together 
as counterparts of each other, and express 
them by the same word, and describe them, 
as to their mode, in the same way. The 
consequence then is, that as the baptism of 
the Spirit is pouring, shedding, &e., and as 
the baptism of water is to represent that, and 


USE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 215 


is described, as to its mode, in the same way, 
that mode must of necessity be pouring or 
sprinkling. 


THE USE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 


As I have often heard it asked, What is the 
use of infant baptism? I think it necessary, 
before I conclude, to say something in an- 
swer to that question. With regard to the 
use of baptism I consider it in the light of a 
mean of grace, and I view it in the same 
way when applied to infants. I do not sup- 
pose that infants, properly speaking, receive 
any present benefit by being baptized, but 
that this is designed the more to engage the 
attention of parents, and others to the rising 
generation. I view infants, when baptized, 
under the notion of persons entered into a 
school; and, therefore, I consider parents, 
pastors, and deacons, and church-members, 
at large, as brought under an additional ob- 
ligation to instruct those children who are 
become scholars, as they become able to 
learn, in the peculiar truths of the religion of 
Christ. Viewing the matter in this light, it 
assumes an importance exceedingly grand; 
and infant baptism is far from being that un- 
meaning thing, which it appears to be, when 


216 THE USE OF 


the views are extended no further than help- 
less infancy. 

We may illustrate this by taking a view 
of circumcision. Circumcision brought per- 
sons under an obligation of conforming to 
the revealed will of God; he who was cir- 
cumcised became a debtor: and as this was 
the nature of the institution, the obligation de- 
volved on all who received it. But for as 
much as persons cannot actually conform be- 
fore they are brought to understand, and, in 
order that they may understand, they must 
be taught, we are, therefore, to consider cir- 
cumcised infants as standing in the place of 
scholars or disciples to be instructed in that 
system to which they were bound to con- 
form. If then circumcision brought an ob- 
ligation on some to learn, it must, at the 
same time, bring an obligation on others to 
teach; because usually persons do not learn 
without being taught: and hence parents, 
priests, and people, came under their respec- 
tive degrees of obligation to see the rising 
generation instructed in that religion into 
which they were initiated as scholars or dis- 
ciples. When I consider this divine institution 
as calculated to fix the attention of the peo- 
ple on their rising offspring, with respect to 
their instruction in the things of God, I can- 
not sufficiently wonder at that poor heathenish 
notion of circumcision which Mr, Booth has 
somewhere picked up, or rather invented him- 
self, than which, I am persuaded, the most 
ignorant Jew never entertained a meaner. 


INFANT BAPTISM. 217 


It is for want of viewing the matter in this 
way, that an institution, administered to an 
infant, appears ridiculous to any. When the 
attention is fixed on the infant only, whether 
it be a circumcised or a baptized infant, with- 
out considering any thing further, we may 
well say, as the Baptists do, What can an 
infant know ? What can an infant do? What 
use can it be to an infant? In sucha case, 
it is very true, it would be a difficult thing 
to discern any wisdom in the administration 
of an institution of any kind to aninfant, And 
I remember once conversing with a Bap- 
tist upon infant baptism, who, among other 
things, observed what a silly thing it was to 
baptize an infant. As I perceived his views 
extended no further than helpless infancy, I 
‘asked him, whether, if he had seen it done, 
he would not have thought it a very silly 
thing to circumcise an infant? “That I 
should indeed,” said he, “indeed I should ;” 
these, as well as I can recollect, were his 
very words. But when, on the contrary, our 
views take in the grand design of engaging 
the attention the more fixedly to the rising 
race, all the supposed silliness vanishes away, 
and it appears a plan worthy the wisdom and 
kindness of God. 

I was led more particularly to view the 
matter in this point of light, by considering 
that commissioh given to the apostles by the 
risen Saviour, respecting the Gentile nations, 
Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20. “ All power is given 
unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye there- 

19 


218 THE USE OF -- 


fore, and, matheeteusate, disciple all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 
didaskontes, teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you, 
&c.”? Here we have the whole plan just as 
I have set it down in the case of circumcision : 
they are sent to make disciples (scholars ;) 
for discipulus in Latin, and scholar in Eng- 
lish, are just the same; they are to enter 
such as are made scholars by baptism; they 
are to instruct these scholars in the things of 
Christ, in order that they may observe them. 
Our blessed Lord, by making use of the words 
matheeteusate, make disciples, and didaskon- 
tes, teaching, carries our views immediately 
to matheetai, discipuli, scholars, and didas- 
kaloi, preceptores, school-masters ; and thus 
we are presented with a Christian school with 
scholars and masters. 

According to this view of the subject, and 
to this our Lord’s words naturally lead us, 
there appears not only a grandeur of design, 
but likewise an exact symmetry in the differ- 
ent dispensations of God—I mean that atten- 
tion to the rising offspring, which had shown 
itself in a former dispensation, and, no doubt, 
in all. It is to be observed that our Lord 
uses a term, a school term, which will agree 
to an infant as well as an adult; for the word 
matheetees, a scholar, of which the word used 
by our Lord is the theme, does not necessari- 
ly intend previous learning nor present learn- 
ing, but only learning in design. We call 


INFANT BAPTISM. 219 


those scholars, who have done learning, and 
so we do those who are now at their studies, 
and so likewise those who have not yet be- 
gun to learn, provided they are entered for 
that purpose: so that the idea of learning 
does not necessarily annex itself to the term 
matheetees, scholar, any further than to de- 
note a person who is entered into a school 
with a view to learn. 

But here it may be asked, What propriety 
can there be, in calling a person a disciple 
or scholar, who is yet incapable of learning ? 
I reply, he is properly so called, because he 
is entered with that design: e. g. Numbers 
iii, 28. “In the number of all the males, 
from a month old and upwards, were eight 
thousand and six hundred, keeping the 
charge of the sanctuary.”” Can any body 
tell me how a child of six weeks old could 
pe a keeper of the charge of the sanctuary ? 
Certainly he could no otherwise be called a 
keeper, but as one designed and appointed to 
that service. Just with the same propriety, 
an infant, who, by circumcision or baptism, 
was or is publicly entered into a religious 
school, may be called a disciple in a reli- 
gious sense. And itisa very general opjnion, 
that infants are actually so called in Acts xv. 
10. « Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on 
the neck of the disciples??? That infants are 
called disciples will appear plain, if we ask, 
On whose neck was this yoke to have come? 
Every one knows, who knows the manner 
of Moses respecting circumcision, that it 


220 THE USE OF 


would have come on adults, but chiefly on 
infants; and then it is evident, that as part 
of those, on whom the yoke would have 
come, were infants, it is as evident, that 
those infants were called disciples: but whe- 
ther this be so or not, the word made use of 
by our Lord will agree to infants as well as 
adults. 

The apostles are to make disciples—that 
is all matheeteusate imports. But still the 
question is, How are they to make them? I 
answer, By teaching; for neither adult nor 
infant can be made a disciple without. And 
herein the Baptists are very right, and I 
agree with them, that adults and infants 
must be made disciples by teaching, or they 
will not be made so at all. But then how 
can an infant be made a disciple by teach- 
ing? I reply, not directly, but indirectly ; 
that is, the parents, being won over by 
teaching to embrace the truth, they present 
their infants to the Christian school to be 
trained up in the same truth; and thus they 
become disciples: e. g. Joel is to sanctify a 
fast, and call a solemn assembly, to gather 
the people, elders, children, and those that 
suck the breasts. But how is he to assem- 
ble them? He is to blow a trumpet in Zion. 
But what does a sucking child know about 
the sound of a trumpet? I answer, he knows 
nothing at all about it. How then are suck- 
ing children to be brought together by the 
sound of a trumpet, seeing they know no- 
thing of the trumpet or its sound? I reply, 


INFANT BAPTISM. 221 


In the same way as infants are made disci- 
ples by teaching. But how is that? Every 
one knows how it is, who knows any thing; 
and this I have already explained. If the 
trumpet had not been sounded, the sucklings 
would not have been collected, and if men 
were not taught, infants would not become 
disciples: so then infants as well as men are 
made disciples by teaching, as elders and 
sucking children are brought to the fast by 
the sound of a trumpet. 

Viewing baptism as introducing infants 
into a visible state of discipleship, we are to 
consider others as teachers and overlookers 
of these disciples; and then the usefulness 
of such an institution will display itself be- 
fore us. We see an infant baptized. If our 
views terminate there, alas! what is it? In- 
fant sprinkling only, the baptism of a baby. 
Things which are little in themselves, be- 
come great by their connexion with, and re- 
lation to, others. We see an infant baptized 
—What does it import? He is received 
into discipleship, z. e. to be a scholar ina 
Christian school. Now carry your views 
into the department of parents, pastors, dea- 
cons, and members; and listen to the silent 
language of this institution. “ Parents, pas- 
tors, and people, pray for us; during our ten- 
der infancy, pray for us. And when matur- 
ed by age, cause the doctrine which you pro- 
fess, to drop upon us as the rain, to distil as 
dew, as the small rain wpon the tender herb, 
and as showers upon the grass. Watch over 


222 THE USE OF 


us with united care, and bring us up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord.” It is 
a dispensation grand and merciful, which is 
calculated more powerfully to turn the atten- 
tion of men to the concerns of those ho are 
rising into life, and posting into eternity. 

There is one fault among others in the 
Baptist system, that it places the rising gene- 
ration so entirely out of sight. I do not 
mean that the Baptists themselves do this; 
for their conduct in this respect is much bet- 
ter than their system; but their system places 
them out of sight. And in this, it differs from 
all the dispensations of God, of which we 
have any particular knowledge; which alone 
would lead to a presumption, that it is not of 
God. 

To what I have said concerning the use 
of infant baptism, under the idea of an in- 
stitution suited to draw the attention more 
powerfully to the immortal concerns of the 
rising generation, (and he must be very in- 
attentive to human nature, who does not see 
a beauty and blessedness in such a contri- 
vance ;) there is no objection that can be 
brought by a Baptist, but may be retorted. 
He may say, Cannot all this be done with- 
out baptizing infants? Retort: cannot men 
be built up in faith and love, without either 
baptism or the Lord’s supper? — Are not 
many baptized infants as destitute of real te- 
ligion as others? Ret.—And are not many 
baptized adults, as destitute of religion as 
heathens? Are not many unbaptized infants 


INFANT BAPTISM. 223 


brought up in Christian knowledge equally 
as well as the baptized ones? Ret.—And 
are not many, who have not been baptized 
in adult age, as gracious and holy as those 
who have? In this way every objection 
which can be brought may easily be retorted 
on the objector. 

But the truth is, that the enjoyment of or- 
dinances is to be considered only as a means 
of grace; they are well suited as ordinances 
to impress the mind; but. then, it is very cer- 
tain, they effect nothing, unless God is pleased 
to give the increase. The possession of the 
word of God, the enjoyment of preaching, 
baptism, the Lord’s supper, are good things 
in themselves, though many are never the 
better for them; but we are to estimate. these 

things not by the advantage which some re- 
» : . . 
ceive, but by their own suitableness to pro- 
mote, as means, some great ends. 

When we consider infants under the notion 
of disciples, or scholars, the idea suggests to 
us a noble kind of discipline in the church of 
God. It suggests, that all those infants who 
were baptized, should be formed, as they be- 
come capable, into societies, for the purpose 
of Christian instruction; and so every church 
should have its school. That there should 
be in churches, not only poimenes, pastors, 
but didaskaloi, schoolmasters, Eph. iv. 11. 
That the minister, and other fit persons, 
should preside over these little disciples ; and 
parents who bring their children to baptism, 
should consider themselves as bound in con- 


7 


224 THE USE OF 


science to see them forth-coming to this so- 
ciety at all appointed seasons. That all the 
members should watch over them, with 
respect to their morals, and likewise their 
Christian learning. . In short, the whole 
should be a church business, regulated in the 
manner of doing according to the wisdom of 
each Christian society. For as the infant is 
received by the church as a disciple in its 
baptism, the church becomes bound to regard 
that infant as such; and to see that it is treat- 
ed as a scholar of Christ. To all this, it is 
plain, the idea of discipleship leads; and in 
this view it becomes greatly important, as its 
tendency is to draw the cares and prayers of 
the whole Christian church towards the rising 
generation. 

There are many special uses connected 
with this grand leading idea, which the limit 
of this essay will not permit me to mention. 
I cannot say how far the leading idea itself 
is attended to by those who adopt infant 
baptism ; if it be not, it is so much the more 
to be lamented, that in this, as well as in 
other things, the spirit of an institution is not 
followed up to its proper scope. It is suffi- 
cient, notwithstanding, to my present pur- 
pose, in showing the usefulness of an ordi- 
nance, if there be a natural fitness, in the 
ordinance itself, to promote the great end I 
have mentioned. And as every system we 
embrace is likely to impress our minds ac- 
cording to its nature; that system must be 
eminently good and useful, which is calcu- 


INFANT BAPTISM. 225 


lated, most of all, to bring the rising genera- 
tion, and their everlasting concerns to our 
mind; to hold them up perpetually before 
our eyes; and to fix them habitually upon 
our hearts.—All this the admission of infants 
by baptism to a state of discipleship in the 
church of God, is evidently calculated to do ; 
and herein I judge its main usefulness con- 
sists, 


THE END. 


DATE DUE 


bem yy 


D00703371L 


wh “ = 
ry 7 : 3 : ‘ | 


